
4 




Class 


JK 


> 35 ? 


Book X 3~P 3 





« 


> 


t 
















I 





































t 




% 






$ 






% 




% 









i 














































































































































































































































































































- 
























■ 































































CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 


OP 

DAN PARRILLO 

V. 

STANLEY H. KUNZ 

FROM THE 

EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 
OF ILLINOIS 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1922 










()» 





























I 

} 




f 















{ 


c 




r 














K 

j 





. > 







i 




✓ 


\ 





















/ 




4 























If// 





































H 

CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 


DAN PARRILLO 

y. 

STANLEY H. KUNZ 


FROM THE 

EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 
OF ILLINOIS 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1922 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

SECS1WB 

APR 271922 

DOCUMENTS Ui.V.ilQN 


«<«•« 



rmctA 


CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 


A 

r\ 




OF 

DAN PARRILLO v. STANLEY H. KUNZ, 

FROM THE 

EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 


NOTICE OF CONTEST. 


Stanley H. Kunz, 

1916 Potomac Avenue , Chicago, III.: 

Notice is hereby given that Dan Parrillo, the contestant in the above cause, 
who was a candidate on the Republican ticket for the office of Member of the 
House of Representatives of the United States, in the eighth congressional dis¬ 
trict of Illinois, at the general election held on November 2, 1920, intends to 
contest the alleged election of yourself for said office; and attached hereto is 
a copy of the petition addressed to the House of Representatives of the United 
States to be filed in due course with the Clerk of said House, which, copy of the 
said petition sets forth specifically and particularly the grounds upon which 
this contestant relies in said contest. 

Dan Parrillo, 

Contestant. 

Frank D. Ayers, 
Attorney for Contestant. 


Received the above notice with copy of petition for contest thereto attached, 
this-day of December, A. D. 1920. 


, Contestee. 


A copy of the above notice duly accepted by the contestee was filed with the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives on December 29, 1920. 


PETITION. 


To the House of Representatives of the United States: 

Your petitioner, Dan Parrillo, respectfully represents that he is now and for 
more than 35 years prior to the 15th day of September, 1920, was a resident of 
the city of Chicago, a citizen of the United States and of the State of Illinois, 
and a resident and legally registered and qualified elector in the city of Chi¬ 
cago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois, and that for more than 14 years 
prior to the above-mentioned date he had his home and domicile at 1431 West 
Grand Avenue, in said city of Chicago, which is located in the twenty-fourth 
precinct of the seventeenth ward of said city and also in the eighth Illinois con¬ 
gressional district. 

Your petitioner, who will hereinafter be referred to as the contestant, fur¬ 
ther represents that he is a member of and affiliated with the Republican Party, 
which is a legally constituted state-wide political party in Illinois; that he 
is more than 35 years of age; and that he is and was before the 15th day 
of September, 1920, in every way eligible and qualified to receive the nomina¬ 
tion and election on said Republican ticket for the office of Member of the 
House of Congress in and for the said eighth congressional district. 

The contestant further represents that pursuant to law a primary election 
was held throughout the State of Illinois, including the eighth congressional 
district, on the 15th day of September, 1920, to nominate candidates by the 

1 





2 


PABRILtLO VS. KUNZ. 


legally constituted political parties of said State for various offices, sucli as 
congressional, State, county, and district offices, which candidates so nominated 
had their names afterward printed upon the official ballot, printed and dis¬ 
tributed at public expense in accordance with law, and were voted upon at 
a general election held on the second day of November, 1920, throughout the 
United States, including the State of Illinois and the said eighth congressional 
district. 

The contestant further represents that a petition, duly signed by the requisite 
number of legally qualified and duly registered Republican voters of said eighth 
congressional district, was duly and legally filed with the Secretary of State 
of Illinois more than 40 days and less than 60 days prior to sgid primary elec¬ 
tion held on the 15th day of September, 1920, in accordance with an act 
entitled “An act to provide for the holding of primary elections by political 
parties” (approved March 9, 1910, and in force July 1, 1910), which said law is 
now and was in full force in the State; of Illinois from the time when the 
same went into force and effect until the present time, which petition set forth 
the name of the contestant to be printed upon the Republican primary ballot 
as a candidate for nomination for the said office of Member of the House of 
Congress, to be voted for by the qualified Republican electors of said congres¬ 
sional district at said primary election held on the date aforesaid. 

The contestant further represents that the eighth congressional district lays 
entirely within the city of Chicago and State of Illinois; that it includes 
precinct 1 in the tenth ward; precincts 52 to 60, inclusive, in the fifteenth ward; 
precincts 1 to 83, inclusive, in the sixteenth ward ; precincts 1 to 24, inclusive, 
in the seventeenth ward ; precincts 1 to 17, inclusive, in the eighteenth ward; 
precincts 1 to 21, inclusive, in the nineteenth ward; and precincts 1 and 2 in 
the twentieth ward, all in said city of Chicago; that the law governing elections 
within the city of Chicago, including the eighth congressional district, is what 
is know as the Australian ballot system, which is entitled “An act to provide 
for the printing and distribution of ballots at public expense and for the 
nomination of candidates for public office, to regulate the manner of holding 
elections and to enforce the secrecy of the ballot” (approved June 22, 1891, in 
force July 1, 1891), which said law was in full force and effect on the 15th 
day of September, 1920, when the above-mentioned primary was held, and 
also on the 2d day of November, when the general election was held, as above 
set forth; that also in the city of Chicago all primaries and elections are 
held under what is know as the city election law, which is entitled “An act 
to amend an act entitled ‘An act regulating the holding of elections and 
declaring the results thereof in cities, villages, and incorporated towns in 
this State’ (approved June 19, 1885, in force July 1, 1885, as amended by an 
act approved June 18, 1891, in force July 1, 1891),” which said law is now in 
full force and effect and has been ever since the same became the law, as 
above stated; that under said city election law there is a board of election 
commissioners, consisting of three members, which said board has full power 
and authority to hold and conduct elections, including the appointment of 
judges and clerks, and which board of election commissioners constitutes the 
canvassing board which canvasses the returns of primary elections and who in 
connection with the county judge, with the assistance of the city attorney, 
constitute the official canvassing board for general elections; that at the 
aforesaid primary held on the 15th day of September, 1920, by the official 
canvass of the returns by said board of election commissioners, the contestant 
was duly proclaimed the nominee of the Republican Party as a candidate of 
said party for the office of Member of the House of Congress, and a tabulated 
statement of the returns as found by said board of election commissioners was 
certified to the county clerk of Cook County, Ill., in which county the city of 
Chicago is located, and the said county clerk submitted said tabulated state¬ 
ment of votes to the county canvassing board, which canvassing board in turn 
canvassed said tabulated statement and made proclamation thereon, the same 
being certified by the county clerk of said county to the secretary of state and 
submitted by said secretary of state to the State canvassing board, which board, 
after canvassing the returns in the manner provided by law, made proclama¬ 
tion that the contestant herein was duly and legally nominated at said primary 
election; that the secretary of state thereupon, in accordance with law, certified 
the name of this contestant with other names to the county clerk of the 
county of Cook and State of Illinois, who also, in accordance with law, certified 
the name of this contestant with other names to the board of election com¬ 
missioners of the city of Chicago., within which city the eighth congressional 


PAJEtRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


3 


district is located; that it became and was the duty of the election commis¬ 
sioners of said city to print this contestant name on the official ballot; that his 
name was printed on the official ballot, distributed at public expense by the 
said board of election commissioners in accordance with law, which ballot was 
the official ballot used and cast by the voters at the general election held on 
November 2, 1920, for all offices hereinabove set forth, including the office 
of Member of the House of Congress; and that a general election was held in 
accordance with law on November 2, 1920, as hereinabove set forth, and among 
the candidates voted upon for the various national, State, county, and district 
offices was the office of Congressman from the said eighth congressional district 
of Illinois. 

This contestant represents that there were three candidates whose names were 
printed upon the official ballot, printed and distributed at public expense, at said 
election held on the 2d day of November, 1920, as aforesaid, which said bal¬ 
lots were the only ballots used and voted by the electors at said election within 
said congressional district; that after said election was held, in accordance with 
law, the returns, were canvassed by the legally authorized canvassing board, as 
herein above set forth; and that proclamation was on the 24th day of November, 
1920, made by said canvassing board, showing the candidates for office with the 
total number of votes received by each, respectively, as follows: 


Stanley H. Kunz_15, 432 

Dan Parrillo_14, 627 

Henry C. Stockbridge_ 1, 334 ^ 


That a tabulation of the above returns was made in accordance with law and 
certified to the county clerk of Cook County, Ill., and canvassed by a legally 
constituted county canvassing hoard and proclamation was thereupon made, 
which proclamation was the same as that made by the canvassing board, consist¬ 
ing of the board of election commissioners, county judge, and city attorney, as 
above set forth; that after the proclamation by the county canvassing board, as 
above stated, a tabulated statement of the returns as thus proclaimed was cer¬ 
tified by the county clerk of Cook County to the secretary of state of Illinois and 
thereafter, in accordance with law, the said returns were canvassed and pro¬ 
claimed by the State canvassing board, and the vote so proclaimed by said can¬ 
vassing board was the same as above set forth; that the proclamation made by 
the State chnvassing board was made upon the 1st day of December, 1920; and 
that immediately thereafter, in accordance with the provisions of the statute, a 
certificate of election was issued to Stanley H. Kunz, who will hereinafter be 
referred to as the contestee. 

The contestant further represents that judges and clerks of election were 
appointed for each of the precincts in the said eighth congressional district to 
act as the election officials in each of said precincts, respectively, as provided by 
law; and that pursuant to law, under the direction and supervision of said 
judges and clerks, said election was held on the day and date as aforesaid. That 
on said day, after the polls were closed, the ballots were counted and returns 
made, respectively, to the board of election commissioners, the county clerk, 
and the comptroller of the city of Chicago. 

The contestant further represents that under the city election law in force 
in the city of Chicago at the time of the holding of the said election on November 
2, 1920, every elector was required to be registered as a legally qualified voter 
before said elector, under said law, was permitted to cast a ballot; that each 
ballot when given to a voted must be marked on the outside by one of the judges 
placing his initials thereon; that each voter is required under said law to vote 
a secret ballot and fold and deliver the same to one of the judges of election; 
that after the polls were closed it became and was the duty of the judges of 
election to open the ballot boxes in each of the said precincts, respectively, and 
first count the whole number of ballots cast and placed in the ballot box; and 
if the number of ballots shall be found to exceed the number of names entered 
on the poll books, which under the law are required to be kept by the clerks, the 
ballots shall then be replaced in the ballot box and the same closed and well 
shaken and again opened, when one of the judges shall publicly draw out and 
destroy so many of the ballots unopened as shall be equal to such excess; that 
after the number of'ballots and the poll books shall have been made to agree 
in this manner, the said judges shall open the ballots and place those which 
contain the same names together, so that the several kinds shall be in separate 
piles or on separate files, and each of the judges shall examine the separate 
files, which are or are supposed to be alike, and exclude from such files any 





4 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


which may have a name or an erasure or in any manner shall be different from 
the others; that one of said judges shall then take one file of the.kind of 
ballots which contain the same names and count them by tens, carefully examin¬ 
ing each name on each of said ballots, which said judge shall then pass the 10 
ballots aforesaid to the judge sitting next to him, who shall count them in the 
same manner, and who shall then pass them to the third judge, who shall also 
count them in the same manner; that in this manner all of the so-called 
“ straight tickets ” shall be counted; that the same shall be announced to the 
clerks who shall have charge of the poll books, and the clerks shall set such 
number of votes down in figures opposite to the names of the respective candi¬ 
dates in a column provided for that purpose upon the tally sheets; that the 
judges shall then proceed to count and announce the votes received by each 
candidate upon all ballots other than “ straight tickets,” including all ballots 
known as “ split tickets ” and all ballots known as “ scratch tickets,” and the 
clerks shall proceed to tally the same upon the tally sheets and to compare and 
announce the result thereof; that the clerks shall set down in figures the 
number of votes received by each candidate on ballots other than “ straight 
tickets,” as so ascertained and announced, in a column provided for that pur¬ 
pose upon the tally sheets immediately adjoining on the right the space reserved 
for the tallies; that the clerks shall then proceed to add together the number of 
votes received by each candidate as shown in the column containing the 
“ straight votes ” and the number as shown in the column containing the votes 
other than “ straight votes,” which result shall show the total number of votes 
received by each candidate; and that after comparing their results and finding 
that the same agree and are correct they shall set out the same in figures in a 
column provided upon the tally sheet for that purpose on the extreme right-hand 
side thereof, which column shall be headed “ Total number of votes.” 

The contestant further represents upon information and belief, and therefore 
charges the truth to be, that in approximately one-half of the precincts in the 
entire eighth congressional district of Illinois the said judges and clerks, in 
violation of their duty under the law, divided up the ballots into blocks or 
bundles, arranged according to political parties, and that, said blocks or 
bundles of ballots were counted simultaneously by different persons, some of 
whom were the official judges and clerks and some of whom were outsiders 
or bystanders; that in said precincts the votes when counted and tallied were 
not tallied in the first instance upon the official, tally sheets, as the la\v provides, 
but, on the contrary, were, in violation of law, tallied upon what is commonly 
known as “ dummy sheets ”; and that after the votes had been so tallied in 
such manner the judges and clerks then proceeded to copy from said “ dummy 
sheets ” on to the official tally sheets, and in so doing they made many 
mistakes and errors and committed many irregularities, whereby the returns 
from said precincts were irregular, illegal, and incorrect. That by reason 
of the mistakes and irregularities in said precincts, as aforesaid, the canvassing 
boards were unable to correctly and properly canvass the returns from said 
precincts and obtain the true and correct vote for each of said candidates for 
Congress from said district as the law provides; that according to the alleged 
official returns as herein above set fcrtli the contestant was defeated for the 
office of Member of the House of Congress from said district by a plurality of 
805 votes; and that a true and correct tabulation of the lawful votes cast in 
said election for the candidates in said district for the House of Congress 
would show that the contestant was elected by a plurality of more than 1,500 
votes, which fact would more fully appear and be conclusively proven by a 
recount of the ballots cast at said election in the precincts hereinafter specifi¬ 
cally set forth, which ballots are now sealed and in the possession of the board 
of election commissioners of the city of Chicago, as provided by law. 

The contestant further represents that the so-called returns made by the 
said judges and clerks in the aforesaid precincts were not the true, lawful, 
and correct returns as provided by statute, but on the contrary were merely 
pretended returns made up in a haphazard and unlawful manner and were 
thereby and therefore incorrect and illegal; that the judges and clerks in 
said precincts failed, neglected, and refused to count, tabulate, and certify 
said votes correctly, fairly, and impartially, and particularly in counting, tabu¬ 
lating, and certifying the votes cast for the candidates for the House of Con¬ 
gress ; that in the canvass of said votes divers judges and clerks in the precincts 
above mentioned then and there fraudulently, knowingly, willfully, and un¬ 
lawfully failed and refused to count, tabulate, and certify the votes that were 
legally cast, and that by reason thereof the said judges and clerks did not 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ 


5 


show the true and correct vote as the same was cast for the contestant and 
the contestee herein; that the returns of said judges and clerks in said pre¬ 
cincts were untrue, incorrect, illegal, and contrary to law, and in the counting 
and tabulating of the votes in said precincts many other divers unlawful and 
erroneous acts were committed, wherein and whereby the returns of said elec¬ 
tion as made and certified by said judges and clerks were incorrect, incom¬ 
plete, erroneous, and illegal, and therefore did not show the correct number 
of lawful votes cast for the contestant and for the other candidates whose 
names appeared upon the ballots as candidates for the House of Congress; that 
a large number of ballots to the number of, to wit, 1,000, which were law¬ 
fully cast for the contestant in the aforesaid precincts were not counted for 
him, but were wrongfully and unlawfully counted for the contestee and by 
reason thereof the contestant was unlawfully and wrongfully defeated for the 
office of Member of the House of Congress. 

Your petitioner further represents that the following tabulation shows the 
alleged official returns as proclaimed by the legally constituted canvassing boards 
in those precincts wherein the mistakes and illegalities occurred, as above set 
forth, and said tabulation also shows the true and correct number of ballots 
cast for the contestant and for the contestee, the two candidates who received 
the highest number of votes cast ait said election for said office. That a tabula¬ 
tion of the votes cast in the precincts above mentioned, showing the alleged 
official returns and the true returns, is as follows: 

Sixteenth ward. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

28 

30 

31 
33 



Stanley H. Kunz. 

Dan Parrillo. 

Precinct. 

Official count. 

True count. 

Official count. 

True count. 


Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 


158 

80 

136 

70 

50 

13 

72 

80 


123 

58 

101 

40 

59 

8 

80 

26 


169 

96 

149 

90 

53 

26 

73 

32 


159 

93 

138 

84 

58 

19 

79 

28 


132 

97 

120 

75 

82 

13 

94 

25 


147 

67 

122 

56 

74 

35 

99 

46 


149 

93 

134 

86 

56 

32 

71 

39 


101 

38 

88 

28 

75 

38 

88 

48 


158 

59 

148 

54 

74 

25 

84 

30 


175 

110 

154 

100 

51 

19 

72 

29 


116 

50 

100 

40 

45 

12 

61 

22 


117 

39 

98 

35 

70 

25 

95 

29 


197 

138 

181 

124 

35 

14 

51 

28 


89 

40 

84 

35 

69 

29 

74 

34 


122 

97 

110 

77 

60 

24 

72 

44 


171 

95 

160 

65 

27 

9 

38 

39 


189 

114 

183 

110 

27 

15 

33 

19 


221 

180 

201 

169 

21 

10 

41 

21 


129 

103 

125 

100 

28 

18 

32 

21 


183 

117 

168 

112 

37 

22 

52 

27 


160 

95 

156 

93 

41 

14 

45 

16 


173 

98 

160 

91 

50 

12 

63 

19 


230 

121 

190 

116 

33 

14 

73 

19 


170 

104 

159 

101 

36 

23 

47 

26 


113 

49 

106 

98 

98 

39 

105 

47 


158 

68 

136 

56 

68 

11 

90 

23 


178 

82 

168 

75 

68 

38 

78 

45 


165 

119 

150 

96 

44 

6 

59 

31 


130 

39 

118 

35 

29 

14 

41 

18 


79 

45 

72 

37 

55 

29 

62 

37 











4, 561 
2,584 

2,584 

4,115 

2,348 

2,348 

1,573 

606 

606 

2,024 

958 

958 








7,145 
6,463 


6,463 


2,179 


2,982 
2,179 





. 










—682 

4 i 






+ 803 








+682 









1,485 






• 





— Indicates loss; + indicates gain. 













































































6 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ 


Seventeenth ward. 


Precinct. 

Stanley H. Kunz. 


Dan Parrillo. 


Official count. 

True count. 

. 

Official count. 

True count. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

1. 

150 

50 

145 

47 

101 

29 

106 

32 

2. 

124 

61 

114 

57 

44 

26 

54 

30 

3. 

127 

76 

124 

74 

73 

41 

76 

43 

5. 

137 

67 

130 

64 

56 

27 

63 

30 

6. 

127 

68 

122 

67 

75 

27 

80 

28 

8. 

98 

50 

96 

40 

88 

28 

90 

38 

20. 

161 

74 

151 

68 

97 

36 

107 

42 

22. 

151 

92 

131 

87 

46 

24 

66 

29 


1,075 

538 

1,013 

504 

580 

238 

642 

272 


538 


504 


238 


272 












1,613 


1, 517 


818 


914 



i; 517 





818 











-96 






+96 









+96 


Net gain. 







192 












— indicates loss; + indicates gain. 


Nineteenth ward. 



Stanley H. Kunz. 

Dan Parrillo. 

Precinct. 

Official count. 

True count. 

Official count. 

True count. 


Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

12. 

135 

61 

115 

56 

85 

15 

105 

20 

18. 

52 

58 

50 

18 

104 

33 

106 

73 

19. 

74 

25 

70 

22 

51 

16 

55 

19 


261 

144 

235 

96 

240 

64 

266 

112 


144 


% 


64 


112 












405 


331 


304 


378 



331 






304 












-74 






+74 









+74 


Net gain. 







148 











— indicates loss; + indicates gain. 














































































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


7 


Recapitulation. 


Ward. 

Stanley H. Kunz. 

Dan Parrillo. 

Official 

vote. 

True vote. 

Official 

vote. 

True vote. 

10. 

59 

1,293 

7,537 

3,446 

1,448 

1,459 

190 

59 
1,293 
6,855 
3,350 
1,448 
1,385 
190 

142 

1,270 

2,618 

3,563 

3,604 

3,218 

212 

142 

1,270 

3,421 

3,659 

3,604 

3,292 

212 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18.*. 

19. 

20. 

Net gain._ 

15,432 

14,580 

14,580 

14,627 

15,600 

14,627 

-852 



+973 

+852 




1,825 

805 

Kunz’s official plurality. 




Parrillo’s true plurality. 







1,020 






— indicates loss; + indicates gain. 

TRUE RESULT. 


Dan Parrillo. 15,600 

Stanley H. Kunz. 14,580 

Parrillo’s plurality. 1,020 


The contestant further shows that said election held as aforesaid was unjust, 
illegal, and a fraud upon the contestant and upon the people, and particularly 
the members of the Republican Party who have a just right under the law to 
have their candidate who received a clear majority of all the votes cast at said 
election for said office declared and proclaimed by the duly constituted authori¬ 
ties as being elected to the office of Representative in the House of Congress of the 
United States and to have issued to him the proper and legal certificate of elec¬ 
tion to said office. 

Wherefore the contestant charges and states the fact to be that by reason of 
the frauds, errors, and violations of law committed as aforesaid, and other frauds 
and illegalities which may not have been herein set forth and which did not 
come to the knowledge of the contestant, he was unlawfully and wrongfully 
prevented from receiving the true and correct number of votes cast for him 
and thereby, and by reason thereof, was defeated for the office of Representative 
in Congress, to which office he had been duly and legally elected. That the 
contestee did not receive a plurality of lawful votes cast over the contestant for 
said office, but on the contrary the contestant received a larger and greater num¬ 
ber of lawful votes cast in said precincts than did the said contestee, and that 
by reason and by virtue thereof the contestant should be declared and decreed 
by this honorable body, the House of Congress, to have been elected by the lawful 
votes cast at said election for said office. 

For as much therefore as the contestant is without remedy, except in this 
honorable body, as by law in such cases made and provided, and to the end that 
Stanley H. Kunz, who has been made contestee herein, may be required, as pro¬ 
vided by law, to make full and direct answer to this petition and that the said 
ballots cast at said election, held on the 2d day of November, 1920, in the eighth 
congressional district of Illinois and in the precincts above mentioned, shall by 
appropriate action on the part of this honorable body be opened and that a 
recount be had of all the ballots legally cast in said precincts for the office of 
Member of the House of Congress. That the precincts above mentioned in which 
the errors, frauds, and illegalities occurred are as follows: 

Sixteenth ward : Precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 17, 18, 
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 33. 

Seventeenth ward: Precincts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 20, and 22. 

Nineteenth ward : Precincts 12, 18, and 19. . , 

That the said precincts may be counted under the direction of this honorable 
bodv to the end that the many errors, frauds, inaccuracies, and illegalities may 
be inquired into and corrected and a true result of said election be ascertained 
































8 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


and declared, that the illegal and incorrect returns of said election, as above 
set forth, be set aside and declared null and void, that this honorable body 
shall find and declare that the contestant was duly and lawfully elected at said 
election as a Member of the House of Congress from the eighth district of 
Illinois and that he is entitled to a certificate of such election and also entitled 
to his seat as a member of this honorable body. 

Dan Parrillo, Contestant. 

William A. Bither, Attorney for Contestant. 

State of Illinois, County of Cook: 

Dan Parrillo, the contestant herein, being first duly sworn, deposes and says 
that he has read the foregoing petition by him subscribed and knows the con¬ 
tents thereof and that the same are true of his own knowledge, except as to the 
matters which are therein stated to be upon his information and belief, and as 
to such matters this contestant believes them to be true. 

Dan Parrillo. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of Docember, 1920. 

[seal.] Ada L. Ivetcham, Notary Public. 

ANSWER TO NOTICE OF CONTEST. 

The respondent in said above entitled election contest, in answer to the 
petition heretofore filed therein by Dan Parrillo, contestant, for answer there¬ 
unto respectfullv says: 

That he is not informed as to the residence of the contestant and has no infor¬ 
mation regarding the same, but leaves the contestant to strict proof thereof 
should the allegations in that regard be deemed material in said contest. 

Further answering, this contestee says that he has no knowledge of con¬ 
testant’s being affiliated with the Republican Party, nor as to said contestant’s 
eligibility to receive the nomination and election as set forth in said petition, 
and therefore leaves to contestant the strict proof thereof should the same 
be regarded as material to the issues in said contest. 

Further answering, contestee represents that he is without knowledge of the 
Various steps taken which it is alleged resulted in the nomination of said con¬ 
testant as alleged in said petition, and therefore leaves contestant to the strict 
proof thereof should the same be deemed material. 

Further answering, contestee admits that the boundaries of the eighth con¬ 
gressional district are substantially correctly set forth in said petition, and 
further answering, says that he is advised that the allegations in said petition 
touching the nomination of said contestant are wholly immaterial; but con¬ 
testee admits that the general election at which contestee was elected to Con¬ 
gress from the eighth congressional district of Illinois was held on November 
2, 1920; and further answering, admits that under the election law in ac¬ 
cordance with which said election was held there exists a board of election 
commissioners as alleged in said petition, and admits that contestant was pro¬ 
claimed the nominee of the Republican Party for the office of Member of the 
House of Congress as alleged in said petition; and further answering, admits 
that contestant’s name was printed on the official ballot in accordance with the 
law. 

Contestee, further answering, admits that there were three candidates whose 
names were printed upon the official ballot which said candidates were voted 
for at the election on the 2d day of November, 1920, as alleged in said peti¬ 
tion, and further answering, admits that the returns were canvassed by the 
legally authorized canvassing board and that contestee, Stanley H. Kunz, re¬ 
ceived a plurality of all the votes cast for said office at said election. 

Further answering, contestee admits that the proclamation of the result of 
said congressional district was duly made by the State canvassing board on 
the 1st day of December, 1920, and that immediately thereafter a certificate 
of election was duly issued to contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

Further answering, contestee admits that the judges and clerks of election 
were duly appointed as such according to law and that the election was held 
on the day and date and under the direction and supervision provided for by 
law, and that the ballots were counted and the returns made as provided for 
by law to the board of election commissioners, the county clerk, and the comp¬ 
troller of the city of Chicago. 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


9 


Contestee,'further answering, admits that under the law in force at the said 
election every elector was required to he registered as a condition prerequisite 
to the electors being given the right to vote at such election; that, in accordance 
with the law, the ballots given to the voters should be marked with the initials 
of one of the judges presiding at each and every polling place in said con¬ 
gressional district, which said ballot so received by such voter the law required 
should be voted in secret, folded and delivered to one of the judges of election, 
and that after the polls were closed it was the duty of the judge of election 
to open the ballot box and count the number of ballots therein contained, and 
that the allegations contained in said petition with reference to the manner 
of eliminating excess votes, if any were found in said ballot boxes, are sub¬ 
stantially correct. 

Further answering, contestee admits that the allegations in said petition 
with reference to the method of counting the ballots cast in said congressional 
election in said district is substantially correct as set forth in said petition 
except that a number of the acts therein set forth as being required by law 
were and are, as a matter of fact, required by rules of the board of election 
commissioners conducting said election and by their instructions given to the 
judges and clerks but were and are not contained in the letter of the election 
laws then in force in said district. 

Further answering, contestee represents that he has no knowledge with refer¬ 
ence to the alleged “ one-half of the precincts in the entire eighth congressional 
district of Illinois,” in which said contestee charges various violations on the 
part of the judges and clerks of their duties under the law, and has no knowledge 
with reference to the illegal fraudulent counting of said ballots cast in said 
election by persons different from those authorized by law to make the count, 
and leaves contestant to the strict proof of each and every allegation concerning 
the same, especially with reference to the precincts particularly singled out and 
from which the returns are charged to be illegal, wrong, and fraudulent by said 
contestant in his said petition. 

That in said precinct so complained of by said contestant in said petition, this 
contestant denies that mistakes, errors, and irregularities were committed by 
said judges and clerks whereby the returns from said precincts were irregular, 
illegal, and incorrect; and further answering denies that by reason of the alleged 
mistakes and irregularities in said precincts the canvassing boards were unable 
to correctly and properly canvass the returns from said precincts and obtain 
the true and correct vote for each of said candidates for Congress from said dis¬ 
trict. 

Further answering, contestee admits that according to the official returns con- 
testant was defeated for the office of Member of the House of Congress from said 
(district by a plurality exceeding 805 votes, but this contestee specifically denies 
that a true and correct tabulation of the lawful votes cast in said election for 
the candidates in said district would show that contestant was elected by a plu¬ 
rality of more than 1,500 votes, or by any plurality whatsoever, and denies that 
the election of contestant would be conclusively shown and proven by a recount of 
the ballots cast at said election in the precincts specifically mentioned and set 
forth in contestant’s petition. 

Contestee further answering admits that the ballots cast at said congressional 
election are now in the possession of the board of election commissioners, but 
contestee leaves to the strict proof in what condition said ballots were received 
and kept by said board of election commissioners, and whether or not the law 
has been followed by said election commissioners in the preservation of said 


ballots. „ , , , 

Contestee further answering denies that the so-called returns made by the 
judges and clerks in said particular precincts were not the true, lawful, and cor¬ 
rect returns as provided by statute, and denies that the said returns were pre¬ 
tended and made up in a haphazard and unlawful manner, and denies the said 
returns from said precincts were thereby incorrect and illegal. 

Contestee further answering denies that the judges in said precincts failed, 
neglected, and refused to count, tabulate, and certify the votes correctly. 

Further answering, contestee denies that in said precincts the judges fiaudu- 
lentlv or otherwise failed and refused to count votes as legally cast, and denies 
that the judges and clerks did not show the true and correct vote as cast. 

Contestee further answering denies that the returns of said judges and clerks 
were untrue, incorrect, illegal, and contrary to law and denies that m counting 
and tabulating said votes in said precincts many other divers, unlaw tub 
and erroneous acts w r ere committed wherein and whereby the returns of said 


10 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


election were incorrect, incomplete and erroneous; and contested avers that 
by said returns the correct number of lawful votes cast were duly and properly 
shown. 

Contestee further answering denies that 1,000 votes or any other number 
which were lawfully cast for contestant in the aforesaid precincts were not 
counted for him and denies that they were wrongfully or unlawfully counted 
for contestee and denies that contestant was unlawfully and wrongfully defeated 
for the office of Member of the House of Representatives. 

Contestee further answering admits that the tabulation of votes set forth in 
said petition show substantially the official returns from all the precincts in 
said district, but denies the so-called true returns were and should be as also 
tabulated in said alleged petition. 

Contestee further avers that the official returns as set forth in the said 
petition show substantially the correct results of the election held in said 
specific precincts complained against in said petition of contestant and that 
the so-called said true returns are purely matters of imagination and are not 
and will not be borne out by a recount of the legal ballots actually cast in 
said particular precincts, the returns of which are questioned by said con¬ 
testant in said petition. 

Contestee further answering denies that the election was unjust, illegal, and 
a fraud upon the contestant and upon the people and members of the Repub¬ 
lican Party and denies that the contestant received a clear majority or any 
majority or plurality whatever of the votes cast at said election. 

Further answering, contestee denies that by reason of the alleged frauds, 
errors, and violations of law complained against by said contestant that con¬ 
testant was unlawfully and wrongfully prevented from receiving the correct 
number of votes cast for him and thereby was defeated for the office of Rep¬ 
resentative in Congress and denies that contestant had been legally and duly 
elected thereto. 

Further answering, contestee avers that he did receive a plurality of the 
lawful votes cast at said election for said office and denies that contestant 
received a larger and greater number of such votes cast in said precincts than 
did contestee, and denies that contestant should be declared and decreed to 
have been elected by the lawful votes cast at said election for said office. 

Contestee further answering denies that contestant is entitled to the relief or 
any part thereof as prayed for in said petition. 

Contestee further answering alleges that in the precincts contained in said 
congressional district which are not specifically objected to and complained 
against by contestant in his said petition various errors, frauds, and mistakes 
were committed by the judges and clerks who then and there presided in said 
precincts not enumerated by said contestant, which said errors, frauds, anil 
mistakes inured to the disadvantage of contestee, whereby contestee was de¬ 
prived of the benefit in excess of 1,000 votes, which should have been returned 
to the board of canvassers and canvassed by them and contestee have been 
credited with the result thereof, which would, as a matter of fact, have made 
contestee’s plurality in excess of 1,800 votes instead of some 800 votes, as dis¬ 
closed by said official count. 

Contestee, further answering, specifically calls attention to the following 
precincts in which such errors, frauds, and mistakes in the count occurred. 
In the first precinct of the tenth ward contestee should be credited with a total 
vote of some 65. and the vote for contestant as actually cast was some 135 votes. 

That in the fifty-second precinct of the fifteenth ward a recount of the ballots 
actually cast in said congressional election will show that contestee should be 
credited with some 150 votes and contestant with but 75 votes. 

That in the fifty-third precinct of the fifteenth ward contestee should have 
been credited by the judges and clerks with 176 votes and contestant with 
150 votes. 

That in the fifty-fourth precinct of the fifteenth ward the true vote as cast 
for contestee was some 170 votes and for contestant not to exceed 100 votes. 

That in the fifty-fifth precinct of the fifteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 181 votes, while contestant should have re¬ 
ceived about 120 votes. 

That in the fifty-sixth precinct of the fifteenth ward contestee should have 
been credited with 130 votes and contestant 145 votes. 

That in the fifty-seventh precinct of the fifteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with a total of 145 votes and contestant with 
100 votes. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


11 


That in the fifty-eighth precinct of the fifteenth ward contestee should have 
been credited with 180 votes, while contestant, should receive but 115 votes. 

That in the fifty-ninth precinct of the fifteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 130 votes, while contestant should have been 
credited with 150 votes. 

That in the sixtieth precinct of the fifteenth ward contestee should have been 
credited with 115 votes, while contestant should have received but 170 votes. 

That in the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward a recount thereof 
will show that contestee received and should have been accredited with 110 
votes, and that in the same precinct contestant received only 100 votes. 

That in the fourth precinct, of the seventeenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with some 200 votes, while contestant should only 
have been credited with 135 votes. 

That in the seventh precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 145 votes, while contestant received and should 
have been credited with some 90 votes. 

That in the ninth precinct, of the seventeenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 196 votes, while contestant should only have 
been credited with 120 votes. 

That in the tenth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 164 votes and contestant should only have been 
credited with 140 votes. 

That in the eleventh precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 75 votes while contestant should have been 
credited with only 140 votes. 

That in the twelfth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 140 votes, and contestant should only have 
been credited with 160 votes. 

That in the thirteenth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 90 votes, and contestant should have been 
credited with only 200 votes . 

That in the fourteenth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 60 votes, and contestant should be only 
credited with 185 votes. 

That in the fifteenth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 75 votes, and contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 265 votes. 

That in the sixteenth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 80 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 165 votes. 

That in the seventeenth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with some 100 votes, and contestant received 
and should only have been credited with some 235 votes. 

That in the eighteenth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should be credited with some 180 votes, and contestant received and should 
have been credited with only some 175 votes. 

That in the nineteenth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 125 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 160 votes. 

That in the twenty-first precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with some 120 votes, while contestant received 
and should have been credited with a like amount. 

That in the twenty-third precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 150 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 140 votes. 

That in the twenty-fourth precinct of the seventeenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 115 votes, while contestant received and 
should have been credited with only 130 votes. 

That in the first precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and should 
be credited with over 100 votes, while contestant only received and should be 
credited with 180 votes. 

That in the second precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with some 75 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with some 230 votes. 

That in the third precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with some 60 votes, and contestant received and 
should have only been credited with some 200 votes. 


12 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


That in the fourth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 80 votes, while contestant received and should 
-only have been credited with 195 votes. 

That in the fifth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 250 votes, and contestee received and 
.should have been credited with 80 votes. 

That in the sixth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 130 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with some 230 votes. 

That in the seventh precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with some 100 votes, while contestee received and 
should only have been credited with some 195 votes. 

That in th eighth precinct of the eighteeith ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with some 150 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 185 votes. 

That in the ninth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 98 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with some 150 votes. 

That in the tenth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
^should have been credited with 208 votes, while contestant only received and 
should have been credited with 203 votes. 

That in the eleventh precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 100 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 201 votes. 

That in the twelfth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 115 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 160 votes. 

That in the thirteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 136 votes, while contestant received and 

should only have been credited with 157 votes. 

That in the fourteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 130 votes, while contestant received and 

should only have been credited with 122 votes. 

That in the fifteenth precinct of the Eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 143 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 107 votes. 

That in the sixteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 156 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 137 votes. 

That in the seventeenth precinct of the eighteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 106 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 139 votes. 

That in the first precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 49 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 105 votes. 

That in the second precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 52 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 140 votes. 

That in the third precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 35 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 180 votes. 

That in the fourth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 100 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 76 votes. 

That in the fifth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 61 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 190 votes. 

That in the sixth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 100 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 133 votes. 

That in the seventh precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 78 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 200 votes. 

That in the eighteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 135 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 128 votes. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


13 


That in the ninth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 61 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 151 votes. 

That in the tenth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 100 votes, while contestant received and should 
only be credited with 82 votes. 

That in the eleventh precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 100 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 98 votes. 

That in the fourteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 60 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 120 votes. 

That in the fifteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 42 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 126 votes. 

That in the sixteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 75 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 155 votes. 

That in the seventeenth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 105 votes, while contestant received and 
should only be credited with 140 votes. 

That in the eighteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 130 votes, while contestant received and 
should only have been credited with 117 votes. 

That in the twentieth precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 75 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 125 votes. 

That in the twenty-first precinct of the nineteenth ward contestee received 
and should have been credited with 65 votes, while contestant received and should 
have been credited with only 142 votes . 

That in the first precinct of the twentieth ward contestee received and should 
have been credited with 122 votes, while contestant received and should only 
have been credited with 128 votes. 

That in the second precinct of the twentieth ward contestee received and 
should have been credited with 88 votes, while contestant received and should 
only have been credited with 64 votes. 

That in each and every one of the precincts hereinbefore directly enumerated 
the votes that in each instance were cast for contestee and should have been 
credited to him on the official returns were, by mistake, fraud, or error, omit¬ 
ted from the official returns made by the judges and clerks, which erroneous, 
fraudulent, or mistaken returns were canvassed by the canvassing board and 
as a result thereof contestee was deprived of the large number of votes therein 
accumulated, which should have been added to his plurality as indicated by 
the final result of said canvass; and that by the fraud, errors or mistakes of 
the judges and clerks in the above-enumerated precincts, contestant received 
a large number of votes that should not have been credited to him on the 
said official returns, and that a recount in the precincts hereinbefore specifi¬ 
cally referred to by contestee will show the truth of the allegations herein con¬ 
tained in reference thereto. , ' . . 

Contestee further answering shows that each and all the statements of fact 
herein mentioned and set forth in the precincts specifically enumetated are 
made by contestee as the result of information given to him by various parties, 
and to the best information, knowledge, and belief of contestee are substantially 


Contestee hereby offers to permit an inspection and recount of the ballots in 
each of the precincts specifically set forth in the petition of contestant and in 

1 Contestee specifically Wienies that contestant was elected to the office of Con¬ 
gressman from the eighth district of Illinois at the election held on November 
2 1920 and avers that on the contrary thereof he was and is the duly elected 
Representative in Congress from said district, having been so elected on the 

2d day of November, 1920. Stanley H. Kunz, Contestee. 


William C. As ay, 

Wallace Streeter, 

Attorneys for Contestee. 


14 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


State of Illinois, County of Cook: 

Stanley H. Kunz, contestee in the above answer, being first duly sworn, on 
his oath says that he has read the foregoing answer by him subscribed and 
knows the contents thereof; that the same is true in substance and in fact except 
as to those matters therein stated to be upon information and belief, and as to 
those matters he verily believes it to be true. 

Stanley H. Kunz. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of January, A. D. 1921. 
[seal.] Archie H. Cohen, Notary Public. 

EVIDENCE FOR CONTESTANT. 

Exhibit 1.—Subpcena duces tecum. 

To George H. Williams, William H. Stuart, and Harry W. Starr, members of 
the board of election commissioners of the city of Chicago and ex officio of 
the town of Cicero; George F. Lohman, Esq., clerk of said board of election 
commissioners: 

You are hereby ordered to appear at the office of the board of election com¬ 
missioners, which is located on the third floor of the City Hall of Chicago, 
county of Cook, and State, of Illinois, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon of Monday, 
April 18, 1921, before me, as a duly commissioned officer under and by authority 
of the Congress of the United States, authorized to take evidence in an election 
contest now pending between Dan ParrHlo, contestant, and Stanley H. Kunz, 
contestee, in the above-entitled cause, and that you shall produce at the above- 
mentioned time and place the ballots, ballot boxes, poll books, tally sheets, un¬ 
used ballots, spoiled ballots, defective ballots, and ballots objected to, and all 
other records in your possession pertaining to and used at and in connection 
with the regular election held on November 2, 1920, in the following precincts 
and wards within the eighth congressional district of Illinois: Tenth ward, 
precinct 1; fifteenth ward, precincts 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57. 58, 59. 60; six¬ 
teenth ward, princicts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 
20. 21, 22. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; seventeenth ward, 1, 2. 3, 
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24; eighteenth 

ward, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 17; nineteenth ward, 1, 2, 

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 20, 21; twentieth ward, 

1, 2; and this you will in nowise omit, under penalty of law. 

Guy C. Crapple, 

Notary Public and Commissioner to take depositions in the above-entitled cause. 
Received a copy of the above this 16th day of April, 1921. 

Geo. F. Lohman, 

Chief Clerk , Board of Election Commissioners. 


Exhibit 2.— Stipulation. 

i 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the 
respective parties in the above-entitled contest, who are fully empowered by 
their respective clients to enter into the following stipulation: 

1. That the service of all notices, including names and addresses of witnesses, 
required by law in reference to hearings and the taking of depositions before 
a designated officer be, and the same is, hereby waived; that in lieu thereof it 
is agreed that the time and place for introducing evidence and taking deposi¬ 
tions on the part of the contestant be commenced at 10 o’clock on Monday, 
February 28, 1921, in the office of the board of election commissioners of the 
city of Chicago on the third floor of the City Hall in said city, and continue 
from day to day until the same is concluded; and that such evidence may be 
taken before the Hon. Guy C. Crapple, a notary public, who resides at 947 
West Taylor Street, in the eighth congressional district of Illinois. 

2. That the time in which the contestant shall close proof will be extended 
to and include a period of 40 days from the said 28th day of February, 1921; 
that the contestee shall have 40 days at the expiration of said time in which 
to offer any proof he may desire; and that contestant shall thereafter have 
the 10 days succeeding within which to offer rebuttal proof. 

3. That at the said hearings the ballots and all records pertaining to the 
election held on the 2d day of November, 1920. and now in the possession 



PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


15 


of the board of election commissioners in the city of Chicago, may be opened, 
counted, photographed, inspected, copied, or in any way made use of for the 
purpose of evidence on the part of either party subject only to proof of the 
authenticity and identity of same. 

4. And that contestee, should he desire to introduce any testimony on his 
part, may at his option take the same either before the officer hereinbefore 
mentioned as notary or may substitute some other notary in his place to pre¬ 
side at the taking of the testimony on behalf of contestee. 

Dated at Chicago, February 8, A. D. 1921. 

William A. Bither, 

Stephen A. Mala to, 

Attorneys for Contestant. 
Wallace Streeter, 

William C. Asay, 

Attorneys for Contestee. 

It is further stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the 
respective parties in this contest that the time for taking evidence on the part 
of contestant may be and the same is hereby continued from the 28th day of 
February, 1921, until the 18th day of April, 1921. 

Dated at Chicago, February 8, 1921. 

Frank D. Ayers, 

Stephen A. Malato, 
Attorneys for Contestant. 

William C. Asay, . 

Wallace Streeter, 
Attorneys for Contestee. 


certificate of evidence. 

Be it remembered that on Monday, the 18th day of April, A. D. 1921, the 
contest wherein Dan Parrillo is contestant and Stanley H. Ivunz is contestee 
was duly opened, in the rooms of ♦the board of election commissioners of the 
city of Chicago, in the City Hall Building, Chicago, Cook County, Ill., where¬ 
upon the following evidence was introduced and proceedings had : 

Present: Board of election commissioners, composed of Election Commission¬ 
ers Williams, Stuart, and Starr, and George F. Lohman, chief clerk, in response 
to a subpoena duce tecum in the above entitled contest; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, at¬ 
torney for contestant, Dan Parrillo; William C. Asay and Wallace Streeter on 
behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

WILLIAM H. CURRAN, a witness produced and sworn on behalf of the con¬ 
testant, was examined in chief by Mr. Ayers and testified as follows: 

Q. What is your name?—A. William H. Curran. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. 1847 South Ashland Avenue. 

Q. What is your business?—A. Custodian. 

Q. For whom?—A. The board of election commissioners. 

Q. Custodian of what?—A. Custodian of ballot supplies, and so forth. 

Q. Are you the directly appointed custodian of the board of election commis¬ 
sioners for the city of Chicago?—A. I am. 

Q. And does that include the eighth congressional district of Illinois?—A. It 
does. 

Q. Now, how long have you occupied the position as custodian of the ballots 
for the board of election commissioners?—A. Eight years. 

Q. Then you were the custodian of the ballots at the time of the national elec¬ 
tion held on the 2d day of November, 1920?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ay^ers. It is stipulated that the testimony of this witness heretofore taken 
with reference to the issuance and receipt of ballots from the judges of election 
will be the same as testified to by this witness in the case of Jacob Gartenstein v. 
Adolph Sabath, which in substance is that he had an assistant and 10 men under 
him to receive the ballot boxes and other election paraphernalia immediately 
after the election was held; that the ballot boxes and all packages containing 
ballots were put into a vault which was sealed and locked and where the ballots 
have remained undisturbed ever since; that all ballots are now in the same 
condition as when delivered by the judges of election and that there has been no 
opportunity for anyone to tamper with them in any way. 

Counsel for contestant introduces into evidence the original accepted sub¬ 
poena duces tecum served upon all of the members of the board of election 

96674—22-2 


16 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


commissioners, and also the chief clerk thereof, marked “Contestant’s Exhibit 

1, ” and is attached hereto and made a part of the record hereof. 

Counsel for contestant offers in evidence a stipulation made and entered into 
between the parties hereto on February 8, 1921, marked “Contestant’s Exhibit 

2, ’’ which is attached hereto and made a part of the record hereof. 

It is agreed by and between the parties that this record may show that, in 
addition to the above stipulation, marked “ Contestant’s Exhibit 2,” there was 
another stipulation made and entered into between the parties, extending the 
time until to-day for the contestant to commence introducing evidence in the 
above contest; that under the terms of the last above-mentioned stipulation 
the 40 days in which the contestant was allowed to introduce proofs in his 
behalf would commence to run from this date, to wit, April 18, 1921. 

And it is further stipulated and agreed between the parties, represented by 
their council, that all notices of the contest and the date or dates thereof shall 
be waived, and also all notices of witnesses and other evidence to be intro¬ 
duced at this hearing is hereby waived. 

That the parties hereto further stipulate and agree that the contest shall 
begin by taking the wards in their numerical order, and counting each and 
every precinct in its numerical order, until all of the 170 precincts of the eighth 
congressional district of Illinois have been counted, and that the time fixed by 
law for taking this evidence will be, and the same is hereby, extended to give 
the parties hereto, both contestant and contestee, sufficient time in which to 
count all of the precincts as above stated; and that if more than 40 days of 
the contestant’s time is necessary to count all of said precincts, that said con¬ 
testant may take such portion of the contestee’s time for such purpose as 
will be necessary to complete the proofs contemplated; that the purpose and 
object of counting all of the precincts at the beginning is to consolidate the 
proofs of contestant and contestee and allow both to be introduced as the 
contest proceeds, therefore the time will be extended to cover the period of 
taking proofs to such date as will permit both parties to fully introduce their 
evidence. 

Mr. Asay. That is correct. * 

Mr. Ayers. We will adjourn until 2 o’clock. 

(An adjournment was here taken to 2 o’clock same day.) 

April 18, 1921—2 p. in. 

The parties met at 1.30 p. m. on the same day, April 18, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, 
on behalf of contestee; Guy C. Crapple, commissioner presiding. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment. 

WILLIAM A. BRUSH, a witness, was examined in chief by Mr. Ayers and 
testified as follows: 

Q. What is your name?—A. William A. Brush. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. 124 East Twenty-second Street. 

Q. And you work for the election commissioners?—A. I do. 

Q. And you have been detailed by them to do what?—A. Count. 

Q. Count the ballots in this congressional district at this table?—A. Yes. 

Mr. Ayers. Well, now, that is enough. 

SOL GOODMAN, a witness, was examined in chief by Mr. Ayers and testified 
as follows: 

Q. What is your name?—A. Sol Goodman. 

Q. And you are in the employ of the board of election commissioners, are 
you?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you have been detailed by them to tally the vote?—A. l T es. sir. 

Q. As called by Mr. Brush?—A. Brush; yes, sir. 

Mr. Ayers. Well, that is enough. 

It is stipulated between attorneys for the parties that the above gentlemen 
are, as they have represented themselves to be, and have been detailed by the 
board of election commissioners to make this recount, and all requirements 
making it necessary to have been sworn are hereby waived. 

It is stipulated between the attorneys representing the parties to this contest 
that the ballot box is a canvas-covered pasteboard box made in two sections, of 
the telescope variety, and that the top section sets over the bottom section, 
and that the top section has two flaps, consisting of a piece of cloth about 8 
inches long at either end for the purpose of being attached to the lower half 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


17 


of tlie telescope box by some sort of a sealing process and in that manner to 
seal the box; that the upper part of the telescope box is 15 inches long, 9 inches 
deep and 12 inches wide; that the bottom part of the box seems to be of tlie 
same dimensions, except that it is just enough smaller to fit inside of the top 
part, which has just been described; that the poll book is a pasteboard-covered 
book 11 inches wide, 17 inches long and has blank pages inside for the entry of 
the names and residence of voters; and that each sheet is ruled and has a num¬ 
ber on each line to indicate what line number a voter’s name is written upon. 
The top part of the ballot box has a printed blank form to be filled in by the 
judges of election and that printed blank form is as follows: 

“ Ballot voted at the election held November 2, 1920, in the - precinct 

and-ward, Chicago, Cook County, Ill. 

Number of ballots: 

Democratic— 

Men’s_ 

Women’s_ 

Republican— 

' Men’s_ 

Women’s_ 

Socialist— 

Men’s_ 

Women’s_ 


Judges of Election. 

“ Return to board of election commissioners, third floor, city hall, Chicago.” 

On the outside of the front cover of the poll book is also a blank form, which 
reads as follows: 

“ Poll book.-precinct.-ward. Election of November 2, A. D. 1920. 

Notice to judges of election: Polls must be open at 6 o’clock a. m. sharp and con¬ 
tinued open until 4 o’clock p. m. sharp. All returns must be made before 12 
o’clock m. November 3, 1920. Persons whose names have been registered by 
order of the commission or the county court shall be allowed to vote, regardless 
of the entries made by the judges. Persons whose names are erased from such 
register by the order of said commission or said court, are disqualified and can 
not vote, although marked qualified by the judges. Consult the supplementary 
list in all cases. The orders of the commissioners or of the county court must be 
strictly enforced. Arrest every person who commits a breach of the peace or of 
the election laws, or interferes with the progress of the election' or the canvass of 
the ballots. The police must obey your orders. No warrant of arrest is neces¬ 
sary. Signed by the three commissioners and the chief clerk.” 

Also, at the bottom of the page is printed the name of the county judge. Just 
above the name of the county judge is a little square with a blank form inside of 
it for the purpose of giving the number of votes cast in the precinct, and the 
blank form reads thus: 

Number or men voters- 

Number of women voters- 


Total. 


Inside of the front cover is a certificate which reads as follows: 
“ Poll book of an election held in the - precinct of the 


ward in 


the city of Chicago, county of Cook, State of Illinois, on Tuesday, the 2d day 
of November, A. D. 1920. 

“ This is to certify that the election of November 2,1920, was held in the house 

“ Tids is to certify that on the election day, November 2, 1920, the undersigned 
judges and clerks served and are entitled to pny theiefor.^ 


“ Judges of Election. 


“ Dated November 2, A. D. 1920. 


“ Clerks of Election.” 

































18 


PAREILLO VS. KUNZ. 


The attorneys for the parties herein agree that the above description of the 
ballot box and poll book may be the description of all of the ballot boxes and 
poll books in this congressional district, except wherein such ballot boxes and 
poll books may be varied by mutilation or otherwise. 

Now, the first precinct that is presented to be counted is the first precinct 
of the tenth ward, and the ballot box in that case shows that one of the flaps 
is not fastened, and the other is. There is a rope around the ballot box tied 
rather loosely. The rope passes through a portion of the bottom of the box. 
It goes through two eyelets that are about an inch from the outer edge of 
the bottom of the box. This rope on this box is tied at the bottom loosely 
and has no sealing wax upon it. There is also another package in this precinct 
that appears to be about 2 feet long and about a foot wide. It is wrapped in 
brown wrapping paper, with a rope that goes around and ties at the sides. 
There appears to be sealing wax on the knot that is in the center where the 
rope comes together from four different directions. There is, however, an¬ 
other knot near the end of the package that has no sealing wax upon it. On 
the outside of the package is written in lead pencil, “ ballots voted.” That 
appears three times, and in another place is also written in lead pencil, “ First 
precinct, tenth ward.” 

It is further agreed and stipulated that the ballots used in this election 
are of uniform size and they are about 30 inches wide and 36 inches long. 
In the poll book in this precinct is entered in the proper blank on the face of 
the poll book, “ Number of men voters, 171; number of women voters, 93; total, 
264.” 

There appears to be 265 names entered in the book. Two apparently are 
scratched out. Now, you may proceed to open the ballot box. First sort the 
ballots into men and women, lay them face down, examine the back for two 
things: One is the initials of judges and clerks of election and the other is a 
little printed matter on the center of the back of the ballot, showing that it 
is printed for this particular precinct. Count the whole number of ballots 
with their face down, and then turn them over and count them, men and women 
separately, for the office of Congress. 

The names of the watchers for the contestant are as follows: Michael R. 
Guido and Martin Tarracciano; watchers for the contestee are Michael Hoff¬ 
man and Frank Litterski. 

Let the record show that if we substitute at any time we will put in the names 
of the substitutes. 

That is all. 

FIRST PRECINCT OF THE TENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

(Whereupon the witness proceeded to open the ballot box and count the con¬ 
tents thereof.) 

Whereupon at the hour of 3.45 p. m., same day, April 18, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had, in the presence of the commissioner; Mr. Frank D. 
Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, and William C. Asay on behalf of the 
contestee: 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the attorneys for the respective parties 
to this contest agree that the recount made by the board of election commis¬ 
sioners shall go into this record as the correct recount of the district, and is 
as follows: 


For Kunz: 

Men_ 38 

Women_ 22 


Total_ 60 


For Parrillo: 

Men_ 90 

Women_ 49 


Total_139 


Blanks: . 

Men__ 7 

Women_ 1 


Total---- 8 




















PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 19 

Stockbridge: 

Men_ 34 

Women_ 23 

Total_ 5^7 

Total vote: 

Men- 169 

Women_._ 95 

Grand total_ 264 


(An adjournment was here taken to 9.30 a. m. April 19, 1921.) 

April 19, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., Tuesday, April 19, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; Messrs. William 
C. Asay and Wallace Streeter on behalf of the contestee;'Mr. Guy C. Crapple, 
commissioner, presiding. 

FIFTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. It is stipulated by the attorneys for the parties to this contest 
that the ballot box in the fifty-second precinct of the fifteenth ward has both 
flaps sealed, all tied around, in two ways, with rope that is rather loosely 
wrapped around the box, and on the face of the box appears to be the signa¬ 
tures of Edith Cutlibert, Fred J. Fanden, sr., and Leonard W. Schultz, judges 
of election. On the end of the box are the figures “ 52-15.” The poll book, on 
the front side of it, says “ Fifty-second precinct of the fifteenth ward.” 


Number of men woters_220 

Number of women voters_ 82 

Total_302 


The certificate on the inside of the front cover recites the fifty-second precinct 
of the fifteenth ward, election held at the house of Sol Davidson, 1948 West 
Chicago Avenue, and the certificate is signed by Edith Cuthbert, Fred J. Fanden, 
sr., and Leonard W. Schultz, the same three judges that are on the front, and 
in addition thereto is Lucy Mayer and John W. Green, clerks of election. And 
the poll book appears to have 302 names without any erasure. 

WILLIAM A. BRUSH, having heretofore been duly sworn as a witness, was 
instructed by Mr. Ayers as follows: 

Q. Mr. Brush, will you proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots 
as you did in the precinct yesterday afternoon? 

(WTiereupon the caller, William A. Brush, here proceeded to open the ballot 
box and count the ballots.) 

FIFTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. m. same day, April 19, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had. 

Present: Commissioner Guy C. Crapple, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on 
behalf of the contestant; Mr. Wallace Streeter, on behalf of the contestee. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated that the fifty-second pre¬ 
cinct of the fifteenth ward has been recounted and that the recount is shown 
by the following report made by the board of election commissioners that made 
the recount: 

• 

Ballots cast for Kunz : 


Men_-___101 

Women_:- 33 

Total_134 






















20 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men___ 79 

Women_ 40 


Total_119 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 17 

Women_ 4 


Total_ 21 


Vbtes cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_1_ 11 

Women_ 2 


Total_ 13 


Total vote: 

Men_208 

Women_ 79 


Grand total_287 


•: [*i It BMN \.1| jH 

FIFTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

At the hour of 11.05 a. m. same day, April 19, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had: 

Present: Commissioner Guy C. Crapple, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on 
behalf of the contestant; Mr. Wallace Streeter, on behalf of the contestee. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated between the attorneys 
for the parties in this contest that the ballot box of the fifty-third precinct of 
the fifteenth ward shows on its face under the appellation: “ Democratic: Men 
votes, 68; women votes, 32. Under that of the Republican: Men, 132; women, 
56. Under that of socialist: 22 men, 4 women. It purports to be signed by 
three judges whose names look to be Frank Geldini, Charles Thompson, and 
Nick Stencel. Both of the flaps are sealed, and there is a rope around the box 
two ways. 

The poll book shows on the outside cover: 

Fifty-third precinct of the fifteenth ward: 


Number of men voters_248 

Number of women voters_102 

Total_ 350 


The certificate on the inside of the cover shows that the election was held at 
the house of John Smigiel, 958 Newton Street, and signed by the three judges 
whose names I have just read, and also by Lily Kaeding, August Czupowsko, 
clerks of election, and there appears to be 350 names entered in the poll book. 

Whereupon the caller William A. Brush, was here directed by Mr. Ayers to 
open the box and count the ballots the same as he had done in the previous 
precincts. 

(Whereupon the caller here proceeded to open the ballot box and count the 
ballots.) 

FIFTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

At the hour of 12.30 o’clock p. m., same day, April 19, 1921, there being pres¬ 
ent Commissioner Crapple, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the con¬ 
testant; and Messrs. Asay and Streeter, on behalf of the contestee, the follow¬ 
ing proceedings were had: 

Mr. Ayers. It is stipulated that the tabulation made in the recount of the 
fifty-third precinct of the fifteenth ward by the board of election commissioners 
may be read into the record without objection, which is as follows: 




























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


21 


Ballots cast for Kunz: 

Men_ 111 

Women_ 41 


Total_152 


Ballots cast for Parrillo : 

Men_105 

Women_1__ 49 


Total_154 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 21 

Women_ 7 


Total 


28 


Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 


Men_ 15 

Women___ 5 

Total_ 20 


Total vote, men_ 252 

Total vote, women_102 

Grand total_354 


(At this point, an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 2 o’clock p. in., 
same day, April 19, 1921.) 


FIFTY-FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

The parties met at 2 o’clock p. m., same day, April 19, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Commissioner Guy C. Crapple, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on 
behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the attorneys for the 
parties herein that the ballot box in the fifty-fourth precinct of the fifteenth 
ward shows upon its face that the men’s vote is 233 and the women’s vote is 
86, signed by all three judges. It is apparently sealed up and tied with a rope 
which goes around the box two ways. The poll book of the same precinct 
shows, on the outside of the cover, as follows: 


Number of men’s votes_- 233 

Number of women’s votes- 86 

Total--819 


On the inside of the cover the certificate shows that the polling place was 
'in the house of Carl Krause, 1025 North Lincoln Street, and is signed by all 
of the judges and clerks, and that there appear to be 319 names of alleged 
voters who are supposed to have voted at that election in that precinct. 

At this point Mr. Ayers directed the caller, William A. Brush, to proceed to 
open the ballot box and count the ballots, the same as in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the caller here proceeded to open the ballot box and count the 
ballots.) 

FIFTY-FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 


At the hour of 3.15 o’clock p. m. on April 19, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had: 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers on 
behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee. 
































22 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Tlie following figures were read into the record by the tallier : 


Ballots cast for Kunz: 

Men_U9 

Women_ 45 

Total_ 164 

For Parrillo: 

Men_ 19 

Women_ 30 

Total_ 109 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 13 

Women_ 3 

Total_ 16 

For Stockbridge: 

Men_ 18 

Women_ 5 

Total_ 23 

Total men’s vote_229 

Total women’s vote_ 83 

Grand total_312 


Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated that the above figures 
are made by the board of election commissioners in their recount of this 
precinct. 


FIFTY-FIFTH PRECINCT, OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

At the hour of 3.20 o’clock p. m., April 19, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had: 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on 
behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contested 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated that there are two 
packages in this precinct, namely, one purports to be a ballot box which con¬ 
tains the letters and figures, as follows: 

Fifty-fifth precinct, of the fifteenth ward: 

Democratic— 

Men’s vote_ 112 

Women’s vote_ 52 

Republican— 

Men’s vote_ 93 

Women’s vote_ 59 

Socialist— 

Men’s vote_ 25 

Women’s vote_ *"3 

Signed by the three judges. 

Both of the flaps on the ballot box are sealed and roped. 

There is another package in this precinct, about 3$ feet long and about 18 
inches in diameter, wrapped with brown paper and tied with a heavy cord, 
going around the package two ways. 

On the outside of this package are the words and figures: “ Fifteenth ward, 
fifty-fifth precinct, men and women official ballots, voted.” 

Mr. Ayers (addressing Caller William A. Brush). Will you please proceed 
to open the packages and count the ballots as you have in the previous 
precincts? 

(Whereupon Caller William A. Brush here proceeded to open the package 
and count the ballots.) 




































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


23 


FIFTY-FIFTH PRECINCT, OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

At the hour of 4.15 p. m. on April 19, 1921, the following proceedings were 
had: 

Present: Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on 
behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

SOL. GOODMAN, having heretofore been duly sworn, was called as a witness 
on behalf of the contestant, and being examined in chief by Mr. Ayers, testified 
as follows: 

Q. Mr. Goodman, have you completed the count of this precinct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Which precinct is it?—A. It is the fifty-fifth precinct, of the fifteenth ward. 

Q. Will you read it into the record, please?—A. (Reading:) 


Ballots cast for Kunz: 

Men___ 121 

Women_ 52 

Total_ 173 

Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men_ 81 

Women_ 43 

Total_ 124 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 14 

Women_ 15 

Total_ 29 

Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_ 1 _ 22 

Women_•_ 8 

Total_ 30 

Total men’s vote_ 238 

Total women’s vote_ 118 

Grand total_ 356 


Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated between the attorneys 
representing the parties to this suit that the above tabulation is the result of the 
count of this precinct by the board of election commissioners. 

Also, let the record show that the further hearing is adjourned until 9.30, 
to-morrow morning. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken in the above-entitled contest, 
to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., Wednesday, April 20, 1921.) 

» April 20, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., Wednesday, April 20, 1921, pursuant 
to adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; Messrs. William C. 
Asay and Wallace Streeter, on behalf of the contestee. 

FIFTY-SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the attorneys for both 
parties in this contest that the ballot box has on the front side the figures 
indicating the fifty-sixth precinct of the fifteenth ward, and that the number 
of ballots cast as recorded on the face of the ballot box is: Democratic, men’s, 
57; women’s, 23; Republican, men’s, 94; women’s, 36; Socialist, men’s, 17; 
women’s, 8 . 






























24 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


The box appears to be signed on the face by the three judges of election. 
The box is wrapped with a rope, passing around two ways, with a knot in the 
center on the front of the box and some sealing wax on the knot. The flaps 
on the box on one end are partially sealed and on the other end they are not. 
The northwest Corner of the upper part of the box is bursted. It appears 
to be crowded full of papers on the inside, as seen through the bursted portion, 
and they look like they might be ballots. . 

The poll book on the outside cover recites: “ Poll book of the fifty-sixth 
precinct of the fifteenth ward.” 

The figures entered on the outside of the poll book are as follows: 

Number of men voters-=-248 

Number of women voters- 


Total number-—- 

The certificate on the inside of the cover states that the election was held 
in the fifty-sixth precinct of the fifteenth ward, at the house of Ben Kruger, 
on West Division Street, the number of the house not given. The certificate 
appears to be signed by the three judges and the two clerks of election. There 
appears to be entered in the poll book 334 names. 

Mr. Ayers. Will you proceed to open the box and count the ballots, as you 
have in the Previous precincts? 

(Whereupon the caller here proceeded to open the box and count the ballots 
therein contained.) 

Whereupon, at the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m., same day, April 20, 1921, the 
following proceedings were had in the presence of the commissioner, Mr. Guy 
C. Crapple, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; and 
Messrs. William C. Asay and Wallace Streeter, on behalf of the contestee: 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the attorneys for the respective parties 
to this contest have agreed that the recount in the fifty-sixth precinct of the 
fifteenth ward made by the board of election commissioners shall go into this 
record as the correct recount of said precinct and is as follows: 

Ballots cast for Kunz: 


Men_ 108 

Women_ 35 

Total_ 143 

Ballots cast for Parriflo: 

Men_ 107 

Women___ 37 

Total_ 144 


Men_ S 

Women--- 4 


Total 


12 


Men_ 20 

Women_ 10 


Total_-_ 30 


Men_ 243 

Women_ SO 

— 

Grand total- 329 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock a. m., 
same day, Wednesday, April 20, 1921.) 

FIFTY-SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. in., same day, Wednesday, April 20, 1921, 
pursuant to adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as the morning session, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, 
commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behplf of the contestant; 
Messrs. William C. Asay and Wallace Streeter, on behalf of the contestee. 


































PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


25 


h J\ Ir> A Y? rs \ . the record show that it is stipulated by the attorneys for 

tl 111 ^l 1 ? contest tlmt the ballot box in the fiftv-seventh precinct of 

li can nnT lVsocbibsf l ‘ ecortled on /! le outside 87 Democratic votes. 125 Repub- 
‘ 1 an V 6 ^odahst v °tes. In this record they don't seem to have divided 
them as to men and women. The statement appears to be signed bv three 

end 8 ?? nf u!n C p 10 %i T1 i ie flaps ? n on ? en(1 of the box are sealed and on the other 
d it is oose. The box is tied with two kinds of rope that runs around the 

box once one way and two times the other way. On the end of the box appear 
the figures 57,” a, line, and “ 15.” 


The ballot box shows, by the filling in of the blanks on the front page, that 
it is the fifty-seventh precinct of the fifteenth ward, and that there were 239 
votes cast by men and 53 women; a total of 292. 

The ceitificate on the inside of the cover shows that the election was held 
on the 2d day of November, A. D. 1920, at the home of-, at 1112 Ash¬ 

land Avenue. It purports to be signed by three judges and two clerks of elec¬ 
tion. That the number of names appearing to be entered in the book is 292. 

Mr. Ayers. Will you now proceed to open the box and count the ballets, as 
you have before in the other precincts? 

(Whereupon the caller here proceeded to open the box and count the ballots.) 

Whereupon, at the hour of 3.05 p. m., same day, April 20, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the presence of the commissioner presiding, Mr. Guy 
C. Crapple; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; and Messrs. Wil¬ 
liam C. Asay and Wallace Streeter, on behalf of the contestee: 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the attorneys for the respective parties 
to this contest have agreed that the recount in the fifty-seventh precinct of 
the fifteenth ward made by the board of election commissioners shall go into 
this record as the correct recount of said precinct, and is as follows: 


Ballots cast for Kunz: 


Men_._ 110 

Women__ 31 


Total 


141 


Ballots cast for Parrillo: 


Men__•_ 94 

Women_ 14 

Total_ 108 


Blank votes: 


Men_ 7 

Women_ 4 

Total_ 11 


Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 

Men___ 28 

Women_ 3 


Total 


31 


Total men’s vote_ 239 

Total women’s vote____ 52 


Grand total_ 291 


FIFTY-EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

The following proceedings were had at 3.10 p. m., same day, April 20, 1921, 
commissioner presiding, Mr. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; and Mr. Asay, 
on behalf of the contestee: 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show this is the fifty-eighth precinct of the 
fifteenth ward; men, 208; women, 98; signed by the judges on the face of 
the ballot box. On the outside of the poll book is “ 208 men, 98 women, total, 
306,” with 306 names entered in the poll book. 

Let the record also show that by stipulation no further proof is required in 
this precinct. 































26 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. You may proceed to open the ballot box and count tlie ballots as you have 
done with other precincts. 

(Whereupon the wintess here proceeded with the count.) 

(Whereupon, at the hour of 4.30 p. m., same day, April 20, 1921, the follow- 
proceedings were had in the presence of the commissioner presiding, Mr. Guy 
C. Crapple; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; and Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee:) 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the attorneys for the respective parties 
to this contest have agreed that the recount in the fifty-eighth precinct of the 
fifteenth ward, made by the board of election commissioners, shall go into this 
record as the correct recount of said precinct, and is as follows: 


Ballots cast for Kunz : 

Men_ 121 

Women_:_ 51 

Total_ 172 

Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men_ 79 

Women_ 41 

Total_ 120 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 3 

Women_ 3 

Total_ 6 

Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_ 8 

Womens_ 3 

Total- 11 

Total men’s vote_ 211 

Total women’s vote_ 98 

Grand total_ 309 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. m., April 21, 
1921.) 


April 21, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30.o’clock a. m., Thursday, April 21, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers on behalf of the contestant; Messrs. William C. 
Asay and Wallace Streeter on behalf of the contestee. 

FIFTY-NINTH PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. It is stipulated between the attorneys for the respective parties 
in this contest that the ballot box now to be opened is marked on the outside as 
the fifty-ninth precinct of the fifteenth ward, signed by the judges. The ballot box 
appears to be stuffed full of folded papers, with a string around it. The string 
could be slipped off and the hallo box opened if somebody with evil intent had 
access to it. On the end of the box are the figures - “ 59-15.” 

The poll book shows on the outside that it is the poll book for the fifty-ninth 
precinct of the fifteenth ward. The figures entered on the cover indicating the 
number of votes cast are as follows: 


Men-252 

Women_ 87 

Total- 339 



































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


27 


The certificate on the inside of the cover, after reciting the precinct and 
ward, states that the election was held at 918 Hermitage Avenue, and it is 
signed by all the judges and clerks. The number of names entered in poll book 
as having voted at that election is 339. 

Q. You will please open the ballot box and proceed to count the congressional 
ballots as you have done in the preceding precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

FIFTY-NINTH PEECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Whereupon, at the hour of 11.55 the same, day, April 21, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the presence of the commissioner presiding, Mr. Guy 
C. Crapple.; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; and Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee: 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the attorneys for the respective parties 
to this contest have agreed that the recount in the fifty-ninth precinct of the 
fifteenth ward made by the board of election commissioners shall go into this 
record as the correct recount of said precinct, and is as follows: 


Ballots cast for Kunz: 

Men-110 

Women_1_ 29 

Total_._139 


Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men_111 

Women___:_ 44 


Total_155 


Blank votes: 

Men_'_;__ 8 

Women___1_ 12 


Total__ 20 


Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_-_ 18 

Women___ 2 


Total_ 20 


Total vote: 

Men____247 

Women_____ 87 


Grand total 


334 


SIXTIETH PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. It is stipulated between the attorneys for the respective parties 
in this contest that the ballot box now to be opened is marked on the outside 
as the sixtieth precinct of the fifteenth ward, signed by the judges. The ballot 
box appears to be stuffed full of folded papers, with a string around it. The 
string could be slipped off and the ballot box opened if somebody with evil 
intent had access to it. On the end of the box are the figures £0-15. 

The ballot box shows on the outside: 

Democratic: 


Men_ 43 

Women_ 12 

Republican: 

Men- 105 

Women_ 37 

Socialist: 

Men___—- 7 

Women_ 33 

































■28 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


The statement is signed by three judges on its face. 

The flaps on the box are not sealed ; but the box is tightly wrapped with twine, 
going around two ways, with sealing wax on the knot. 

The poll book shows on the outside that it is the poll book for the sixtieth 
precinct of the fifteenth ward. The figures e ntered on the cover indicating 
the number—the total number of votes to be cast—are as follows: 


Men_ 234 

Women_1_ 74 

Total_308 


The certificate on the inside cover, after reciting the precinct and ward, 
states that the election was held at the house of Jacob Doss, 811 North 
Paulina Street, and it is signed by all the judges and clerks. The number of 
names entered in the poll book as having voted at that election is 308. 

Q. You will please proceed to open the ballot box and count the congressional 
ballots as you have done in the preceding precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At which point an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 p. m., 
same day, April 21, 1921. 

SIXTIETH PRECINCT OF THE FIFTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, April 21, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, pre¬ 
siding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. 
Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the attorneys for the respective parties 
to this contest have agreed that the recount in the sixtieth precinct of the 
fifteenth ward, made by the board of election commissioners, shall go into this 
record as the correct recount of said precinct, and is as follows: 


Ballots cast for Kunz: 

Men__ 83 

Women_1_ 23 


Total—_ 106 


Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men_127 

Women_ 45 


Total_172 


Blank Votes: 

Men___ 11 

Women_ 5 


Total_•___ 16 


Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_ 13 

Women_ 3 


Total___ 16 


Total ballots cast: 

Men-234 

Women---«__ 76 


Grand total-----310 


At the hour of 1.45 p. m., same day, April 21, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had: 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on 
behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


29 


FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
attorneys for the respective parties to this contest that we are about to count 
the tirst precinct of the sixteenth ward, which shows on the face of the ballot 
box that there were 119 ballots entered in the Democratic blank, and that the 
other blanks are not tilled out. The statement is signed, on the fact of the ballot 
box, by three judges. The box is tied with a rope going around the box two 
ways. The flaps of the box are not sealed. 

The poll book for the first precinct of the sixteenth ward shows the number of 
votes cast, on the outside of the poll book, to be: 


Men-219 

Women_HI 


The certificate on the inside of the poll book shows that the election was 
held at the house of Frank Mozuch, No. 1053 Webster Avenue, and that there 
are 330 names entered in the book. 

It is already stipulated that the election commissioners may proceed to count 
the ballots, as they have in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Whereupon at the hour of 3 o’clock p. m. the same day, April 21, 1921, the 
following proceedings were had in the presence of the commissioner, presiding, 
Mr. Guy C. Crapple; Mr. Frank D, Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; and Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the attorneys for the respective parties 
to this contest have agreed that the recount in the first precinct of the sixteenth 
ward made by the board of election commissioners shall go into this record as 
the correct recount of said precinct, and is as follows: 


Ballots cast for Kunz : 

Men_<_157 

Women_ 79 


Total_236 


Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men_ 49 

Women_ 13 


Total___ 62 


Blank votes: 


Men_ 9 

Women__,-- ( -,- 13 


Total_ 22 


Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_ 6 

Women_ 6 


Total_ 12 

Total vote: 

Men_221 

Women_111 

Grand total-332 


Commissioner Crapple. Adjourned by agreement to Monday, April 25, 1921, 
9.30 a. m. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated between the attorneys 
representing the parties to this suit that the above tabulation is the result of the 
recount of this precinct by the board of election commissioners. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken in the above-entitled contest to 
the hour of 9.30 a. m., April 25, 1921.) 
































30 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


March 15, 1921. 

Mr. Ayers. This is entitled Parrillo v . Kunz. That is the eighth congressional 
district contest. 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the contestor, Dan Pardillo, 
represented by his attorney, Frank D. Ayers, and the contestee, Stanley H. 
Kunz, represented by his attorneys. William C. Asay and Wallace Streeter, that 
the time for taking proofs before the commissioner will be extended to such 
time as will immediately follow the conclusion of the counting of the ballots in 
the case of Gartenstein v. Sabath, which is a similar contest in the fifth con¬ 
gressional district, and that each party to this contest shall have the statutory- 
period of time after the commencement of the taking of evidence in this case, 
which is 40 days for the contestant and 40 days for the contestee, with 10 days 
thereafter for the contestant. The purpose of this continuance is to give the 
Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago an opportunity to handle 
these contests in rotation. Said board has the custody of the ballots in both con¬ 
gressional districts, and it would be inconvenient for said board to count the 
ballots in more than one congressional district at a time. 

April 25, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m. April 25, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf 
of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay and Wallace Streeter, on behalf of the 
contestee. 

SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. It is stipulated that the ballot box in the second precinct of the 
sixteenth ward is sealed, and that it shows on the face of the ballot box that the 
number of Democratic votes was: 


Men_ 246 

Women_ 155 

Republican votes cast: 

Men_ 73 

Women_ 46 

Socialist votes cast: 

Men_;_-_ 9 

Women_ 8 

That a statement appears to be signed by the three judges of election. 

The poll book for the second precinct of the sixteenth ward shows, on the 
cover, that the total number of votes cast in that precinct was: 

Men_ 188 

Women_ 93 


Total_____281 


The certificate on the inside of the cover shows that the election was held at 
the house of A. C. Elkhorn, 2044 Wood Street, and the certificate appears to be 
signed by three judges and two clerks of election. 

The poll book also appears to contains a poll list of 281 names. 

This statement is by stipulation, there being representatives of both parties 
present. 

Q. You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, as you have 
in previous precincts in this congressional, district. 

(Whereupon the witness here proceeded to count the ballots as requested.) 

At the hour of 12 o’clock noon the count not having been completed, an ad¬ 
journment was heretofore taken to 1.30 p. m. same day, April 25, 1921. 

The parties met at 1.30 p. m., same day, April 25, 1921, pursuant to adjourn¬ 
ment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as at the morning session, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, 
commissioner; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated that the following figures 
are made by the election commissioners in their recounting of the second precinct 
of the sixteenth ward: 












PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


31 


Votes cast for Kunz: 

Men-106 

Women_ 51 


Total-157 


Votes cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men__ 59 

Women_ 15 


Total_ 74 


Blank votes: 

Men____•_ 3 

Women_ 4 


Total_ 7 


Votes cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 7 

Women___ 0 


Total_ 7 


Total vote: 

Men_175 

Women_- 70 


Total_245 


Eight ballots challenged on the part of llie contestant not counted, sealed in 
separate envelopes, then sealed in the ballot box. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS, produced and sworn as a witness on behalf of the 
contestant, was examined in chief by Mr. Ayers, and testified as follows: 

Q. What is your name?—A. Howard A. Rounds. 

Q. Where do you reside?—A. LaGrange, Ill. 

Q. What is your business?—A. Professional penman and expert examiner of 
forged and disputed handwriting. 

Q. Where is your office and place of business?—A. 64 West Randolph Street, 
Chicago, Ill. 

Q. What special study and experience have you had to qualify you as an expert 
of chirography?—A. I have had 22 years’ experience as a penman, and 15 years 
of that have devoted to expert examinations of forged and disputed handwrit¬ 
ing in connection with my other penmanship work. My first case as a handwrit¬ 
ing expert was in 3906. Since that time I have testified in approximately 300 
cases and have made examinations in between 900 and 1,000 cases altogether. 
I was the handwriting expert for the Government in the I. W. W. case tried 
before Judge Landis in 1918, and was the only expert employed in that case. 
I was the handwriting expert for the American Protective League, one of the 
secret-service departments of the Government during the war. I am the Chicago 
consultant of Pinkertons, and I have testified in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, 

the Dakotas, and Illinois. . , T „ 

Q. Now Mr. Rounds, I will ask you if you have examined any challenged 

ballots in the second precinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. I have. 

O. How many ballots were challenged in this precinct?—A. Eight, 

Q. Now, of that number how many were men and how many were women? 

A. Five men and three women. . 

Q. Did you make a careful and critical examination under the magnifying 

glass of the markings on those ballots?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you assemble those ballots into groups of similar character?—A. I 

did. _ 

Q How many groups have you?—A. Three groups. 

Q. How have you the groups marked?—A. With a piece of paper pinned on 
each group, identified as No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. 

Q. Now, did you find crosses in the square in front of Stanley H. Kunz s name 

on each of the ballots?—A. I did. 


96674—22-3 































32 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. Did you find any two or more of those crosses made by the same hand?— 
A. I did. 

Q. On how many of those ballots did you find those crosses made by the same 
hand?—A. On eight. 

Q. Now, I will call your attention to group No. 3, and ask you to describe 
the markings on those ballots in that group.—A. Group No. 1 consists of five 
ballots, all of them marked in the Republican Party at the top; four of 
them are men and one is a woman’s ballot. Each of the crosses in the party 
circle at the top of these five ballots was made by a different and distinct hand 
in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. Each of these five bal¬ 
lots have a cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, that is made in 
a different hand than any of the crosses at the top of the five ballots, but all 
of the crosses in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on these five ballots 
were made by the same hand. 

Mr. Ayres. Contestant challenges group No. 1, consisting of five ballots, 
on the ground that they were voted by the voters, by placing a cross in the 
circle at the head of the Republican column, thereby voting the straight Re¬ 
publican ticket, including Dan Parrillo, the contestant in this case, who was 
then a candidate for Congress, and after the polls closed and the ballot box 
was opened in the polling place, during the period of counting the ballots, some 
person wrongfully and unlawfully marked a cross in the square in front of 
Contestee Kunz’s name on each of the five ballots; that these ballots were 
wrongfully counted for Kunz, when they should have been counted for Parrillo. 
We ask now that they be deducted from the total of Ivunz's vote in this pre¬ 
cinct and added to that of Parrillo. 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, I will call your attention to Group No. 2, and ask you 
what the markings are there?—A. Group No. 2 consists of one man’s ballot, 
cross in the Democratic Party circle, and also the Socialist Party circle, 
at the top of the ballot. There is a cross in front-of the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz in the body of the ballot that was made by a different hand than each 
of the hands that made the cross in the party circle at the top of this ballot, 
but it was made by the same hand that made the cross in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz on the five ballots of Group No. 1. 

Mr. Ayers. Contestant challenges this ballot on the ground that it was a 
blank so far as Congressman was concerned at the time it was voted by the 
voter, in having a cross in the party circle at the top of both the Socialist and 
Democratic tickets; that after the polls were closed it was voted by some 
person other than a legal voter at that time, who placed a cross in the square 
in front of Kunz’s name, which person was the same person who placed the 
cross in the square in front of Kunz’s name on all of the five ballots in Group 
No. 1. We contend that this ballot was wrongfully counted for Kunz, when 
it should not have been counted for anyone, and we also contend that it should 
not be counted for any one at this time. 

Q. I will ask you, in reference to Group No. 3; what are the markings you 
find on the ballot in that group?—A. Group No. 3 consists of two ballots—one 
man’s and one woman’s—neither one of them having any crosses in the party 
circle at the top of the ballots. Both of these have a cross in front of the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz in the body of the ballot, and both of the crosses 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz were made by one and the same hand, 
being a different hand than the hand that made most of the other crosses 
on each of these ballots. There are many other crosses in front of other can¬ 
didates’ names throughout the body these two ballots. There are one or two 
other crosses made by the same hand that made the cross in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz on each of these ballots, and the hand that made the cross 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz was the same hand that made the 
crosses in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on Group No. 1 and Group 
No. 2. 

Mr. Ayers. Contestant challenges the two ballots in Group No. 3 on the 
ground that the ballots were not marked for any person for the office of Rep¬ 
resentative in Congress by the voter; that, after the polls were closed and the 
ballot box was opened in the polling place during the counting period, these 
two ballots were voted for Kunz, by placing a cross in the square in front 
of his name, and the marks on each ballot being made by the same person, and 
the same person who made the marks on all of the ballots in Group No. 1 and 
Group No. 2. These ballots, we contend, were not voted for any one by the legal 
voters and were illegally and unlawfully counted for Kunz, and should be 
deducted from the total of his vote in this precinct-. 

You may cross-examine. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


33 


Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. You are the expert employed by the contestants in all three contests here, 
are you not?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

Avi Republican parties to the contest?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. Who are you working for?—A. I have been examining the ballots in the 
Gartenstein-Sabath contest. 

Q. \\ ho did you act for as an expert there?—A. For Garteustein. 

Q. The contestant?—A. Yes. 

Q. And in this case you are working for Mr. Parrillo, is that right?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. The contestant?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you in the other contest?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the Rainey contest I mean?—A. Oh, no; I don’t know anything about 
the Rainey contest. 

Q. Well, I didn’t know. I am only inquiring to find out.—A. No. 

Q. Now, you say you have been a handwriting expert for how long?—A. 
Since 1906. 

Q. W hen did you first become an expert on cross marks, outside of any 
question of chirography other than marks and crosses?—A. The first case that 
1 actually testified in regarding crosses- 

Q. I am referring to ballot crosses, Mr. Witness.—A. Ballot crosses; yes. 
Was this one for Gartenstein v. Sabath—that is, the first one that I actually 
testified in. 

Q. Did you act as an expert on election crosses for anybody before that?—A. 
Not on election crosses. 

Q. That is what I am getting at, election crosses.—A. No, sir. 

Q. So that your experience as an expert on election crosses with this exami¬ 
nation or comparison, whatever you call it, of the genuineness of crosses, 
began with the Gartenstein-Sabath contest, did it not?—A. Crosses themselves; 
yes, sir. 

Q. Well, do you want to modify it any differently? What do you mean by 
crosses themselves? I am not talking about handwriting now; I am talking 
about crosses, pure and simple.—A. Well, the crosses are simply a matter of 
handwriting. 

Q. I am not asking you that question. The first time has been within, say, 
two or three weeks, has it?—A. Three weeks; yes, sir. 

Q. Three weeks ago?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So that part of the methods, the known, accepted methods used by you to 
determine the authenticity of a signature as compared to an alleged forged 
one, what tests do you apply?—A. The comparison of a forged signature with 
a standard, genuine signature has a great many different things that go to- 

Q. Determine the genuineness?—A. Determine the genuineness. For in¬ 
stance, a genuine signature is the product of years of practice and shows a 
freedom and a natural flowing movement that comes from training. A forged 
signature is where a person tries to make something that they are not in the 
habit of making, and as a result of an attempt to do something that is unnatu¬ 
ral to them it has to be done in an unnatural way, one showing on its face to 
be natural and the other showing on its fact to be unnatural. 

Q. That is the first?—A. That is the first. There are many others. 

Q. I am going to come to the others in a minute. Now, then, applying that 
rule to an election where a man makes a cross for the first time, the first time 
he votes, would that rule have any applicability?—A. No. Because he had 
learned to write some time before probably, and if he could write at all he 
could make crosses. 

Q. Then your rule of familiarity with crosses would not apply there, would it, 
as it does to a signature?—A. Yes; it would. 

Q. Why?—A. Why, because if a person is in the habit of doing a certain 
thing in a certain way they do it that way. 

Q. All right. Where a voter is not in the habit of making a cross in the same 
way, what would you say about that? For example, a voter going into a booth 
for the first time and making a cross, would that rule apply to him?—A. It 
would. 

Q. Why?—A. Why, because the making of that cross is a part of writing, and 
he has been writing, in all probability, for years. 

Q. Well, suppose that he is an illiterate man and can not write, what would 
you say then?—A. Then that rule would be different. 




34 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. Do you know the class of people that are in this neighborhood where this 
precinct is from which these ballots came, as to their literacy or illiteracy?— 
A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know whether it is foreign or American?—A. No. 

Q. So that you base your opinion on that first element, as I understand it, on 
the dissimilarity between them? One of the elements now you base on the 
proposition that you assume the man knew how to write; isn’t that true?— 
A. To a certain extent; yes. 

Q. All right. Now, what is the second test that you put on it?—A. The sec¬ 
ond test that I put on as to whether the signature is genuine or whether it is 
forged is the formation of the letters themselves as compared with the genuine. 

Q. Now, then; you take, for example, one of these ballots and look at it 
indiscriminately—your Exhibit No. 2 is the one directly before me, and I call 
your attention to the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz in the square 
and the cross before the name Helen Matthews Grisby—there are a number of 
crosses in the Republican column, are there not?—A. There are. 

Q. And there are a number before the Democrats, a number before the Demo¬ 
cratic candidates, are there not?—A. There are. 

Q. Now, you say you compare with the genuine. Which one do you consider 
the genuine cross?—A. The cross that—the bulk of the crosses on the ballot 
that are alike. 

Q. In other words, in your hypothesis you are assuming that, if this is a 
crooked ballot, a ballot that has been monkeyed with, you assume that the 
forgery, if there was any, was committed by the fewer number of crosses than 
the greater number; is that it?—A. Yes; taking that into consideration with 
other ballots where I find the same mark in front of the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz. 

Q. That is the third element. I am asking you about this element. Then, 
it is true that you are assuming that the majority of these crosses were made 
by the voter and the minority were made by the person who had ulterior de¬ 
signs; is that it?—A. In this particular ballot that has on top a cross in front 
of the name Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, at the top are the same 
.crosses as the bulk of the crosses throughout the body of the ballot. That helps 
me to believe that the bulk of the crosses throughout the body of the ballot are 
the genuine ones. 

Q. Then we finally get just what I said, and I think that is a fair statement, 
that you find your opinion as to which was genuine and which was counterfeit 
by reason of the assumption on your part—and I am not quarreling with that— 
that the majority of the crosses appear to be made by the same party and the 
minority appear to be made by a different party; is that right?—A. Very 
largely; yes, sir. 

Q. Now, what is the third element?—A. Do you mean in undisputed hand¬ 
writing? 

Q. In disputed handwriting, and then apply it to this?—A. If there are a 
number of standards submitted for the comparison of the disputed signatures, 
if the signatures that are given as standards all check up as being the same 
in their characteristics, and one that is under suspicion is different, the ele¬ 
ment would strengthen my opinion that the suspicious one was a forgery. 

Q. Now, in a comparison of these ballots that you have spoken of, you as¬ 
sume—then on that theory you assume that you have got some genuine crosses 
in front of you made by the right persons, don’t you?—A. I do. 

Q. And of the eight ballots there must have been eight genuine sets of 
crosses then, mustn’t there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you base your opinion, then, the bulk of it—so as to shorten it up as 
much as I can—you base it because in your judgment the cross in the square 
before the name Stanley Kunz in the eight ballots appear to you to have been 
made by the same person; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is fair, isn’t it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I am trying to make a fair statement.—A. That is fair. 

Q. Now, tell me why you say the cross on these first two ballots contain, in 
group No. 3—and where I have said “ 2 ” up to this time I mean “ 3 ”; I was 
reading from the top instead of the bottom. Now, will you just give me that 
question as far as I got with it, because I have lost the question? 

(Whereupon the question was here read by the stenographer.) 

Q. (Continuing question.) are made by the same person? Briefly, what do 
you base it on?—A. I base my opinion that they were made by the same person 
on three things; first, that the character of the stroke appears to be the same, 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


35 


that the pencil with which it is made appears to he the same, and that the 
pencil pressure appears to be the same. 

Q. Those are the three elements?—A. Yes; that as against the pencil pres¬ 
sure, the formation of the stroke, and the degree of hardness or softness of 
the other crosses. 

Q. Now, isn’t it a fact that on the first ballot in Group No. 3 that the cross 
is heavier than the one on the second ballot in Group No. 3?—A. One stroke 
in the second ballot is slightly lighter than the other cross, but in the first 
ballot both strokes are very nearly the same heft. 

Q. And the same width?—A. And nearly the same width; yes, sir. 

Q. How about the formation of the crosses; are they substantially the same 
formation of crosses or different?—A. They are substantially the same. 

Q. And you think the same lead pencil made the two crosses on the two bal¬ 
lots, do you?—A. I do. 

Q. On what do you base that opinion?—A. Because the softness of the lead 
and the color of the lead in both instances seem to be the same. 

Q. Do you find any other crosses of that same lead pencil, in your opinion, 
on the rest of the ballot up here, on either one of these ballots?—A. I do. 

Q. A number of them?—A. Yes; four or five. 

Q. Do you find them nonpartisan—one on the Republican and another on the 
Democratic? Namely, do you find them voted for some Republicans and some 
Democrats?—A. I do. 

Q. What is the other element you have to base your opinion on?—A. I think 
I have covered the ground. 

Q. Then, so far as the comparison of a genuine and a counterfeit signature 
or a forged signature is concerned, you have given us three or four different 
tests, as you have endeavored to apply the same test, so far as they are appli¬ 
cable to the formation of the crosses; is that correct?—A. I have. 

Q. Did you ever take into consideration what is termed, among the hand¬ 
writing experts, the nerve tremor of the person writing the signature?—A. Yes, 
sir; that enters into the character of the formation of the stroke. 

Q. Is that an element that you omitted to particularize?—A. Well, that is a 
part of one of the headings that I enumerated. 

Q. I beg pardon. Then, as a matter of fact, the nerve tremor of different 
human beings are like hand prints, each one is separate for an individual, is it 
not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And can not be counterfeited—that is, can not be successfully counter¬ 
feited?—A. Not successfully to any degree. 

Q. Isn’t that the highest test to determine whether a signature is counterfeit 
or genuine?—A. Yes; we go very largely on what is called line characteristics. 

Q. See if I am right in this, and correct me if I am wrong: Isn’t it a fact 
that in determining one of the ways, and one of the most accepted ways to 
determine the genuineness of a man’s handwriting, is to take a photograph, or 
a photographic reproduction of the doubtful signature, instead of one of the 
genuine signature, and enlarge them both very largely?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And then compare them?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you done that with these crosses?—A. I have with a glass, but not 
photographically. 

Q. Do you mean to say to us that you can tell that the nerve tremor is identical 
in the five ballots now under discussion, that you say in your opinion are signed 
or made by the same hand; have you made that test, that nerve-tremor test?— 
A. I took it into consideration as I examined it through the glass; yes. 

Q. How many diameters does that glass magnify?—A. Well, I have two that 
magnify from a half diameter up to 4 diameters. 

Q. Which one are you using, the half diameter or the 4 diameters, referring 
to the glass?—A. Both. 

Q. Have you got the four here? Let me look at it a minute?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you use that on these ballots?—A. I did. 

Q. Do you find a similarity or identity in the nerve tremors in those two little 
cross marks on those five ballots, or eight ballots?—A. A very little, a cross 
being so small, the lines so short, that the tremor in a cross does not enter into 
it to the degree that it does in the comparison of a signature. 

Q. You would not be willing, as a general proposition, as an expert, to testify 
as to the validity—that is, as to being counterfeit or being genuine—of a cross, 
upon that one proposition, would you?—A. No. 

Q. How big is that cross, so that the record may show just your own esti¬ 
mate of it?—A. Why, about a quarter of an inch long. 


36 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. That is, as it goes diagonally across the little square it would be about 
a quarter of an inch, in your judgment?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How big would it be in the circle provided—there is a cross in the circle; 

I see there are some in these exliitibts here?—A. About half an inch, if it sets 
inside the circle. 

Q. And according to the theory of tremor that we were discussing a moment 
ago, you would have double the chance to discover the identity of tremors in a 
cross which is half an inch in length than you would in a cross quarter of an 
inch in length; isn’t that true?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It would give that much more trembling space?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I guess that is all on that one. Now, let us see the next one. Now, th's 
group No. 2—I am reversing the order here—Mr. Ayers, these ballots that we 
are now just examining will be placed in an envelope, under our agreement, 
and sealed up, and if we care to offer testimony at the end of this contest, after 
we get through counting, we may; is that the understanding? 

Mr. Ayers. I will agree to that. 

Mr. Asay. In any precinct? 

Mr. Ayers. The ballots that are objected to will be folded and sealed in a 
large envelope, and those envelopes will again be placed in the ballot box with 
the unchallenged and uncontested ballots and all sealed up together in the ballot 
box. 

Mr. Asay. That is satisfactory. 

Q. Now, let me see. This one ballot now in group No. 2, consisting of one 
ballot; your testimony on that group, as I understand it, is confined to stating 
that the cross in the square before Stanley Kunz’s name was the same as the 
crosses on the other seven; is that right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the only criticism that you made in connection with that, or the 
only statement?—A. Yes, sir; and it is not the same as the cross at the top. 

Q. Now, you say that the cross before Stanley Kunz’s name in the square 
isn’t the same as the cross in the circle before the word Democratic; is that 
right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Nor is it the same as the cross before the word “ Socialist,” in the circle 
at the head of the other column?—A. Yes, sir; that is right. 

Q. And are the two crosses, one in the Democratic circle and one in the Social¬ 
ist circle, the same crosses—that is, were they made by the same person?— 
A. No; in my opinion, they were not made by the same hand. 

Q. Then, there were three persons marked that ballot, in your opinion?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is all on that one. But I will say this, the same testimony you gave 
in regard to group No. 3 would apply to group No. 2 in reference to the Stan¬ 
ley Kunz cross, would it not?—A. It would. 

Q. In other words. Mr. Expert, I want to be perfectly frank. We have got 
all your ideas on this previous examination on group No. 3 that w T ould apply 
to group No. 2; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And there is nothing to add to or take from that; that is correct, isn’t it?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you say that on group No. 2 the three crosses—one before Democratic 
and one before Socialist and one in the square before Stanley H. Kunz—were 
all made by three different persons, in your opinion?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, when you have testified in answer to my friend and brother, Mr. 
Ayers, you testified that they were made by the same person. You mean to say 
that, in your opinion, they were made by the same person; is that correct?— 
A. The crosses in front of Kunz? 

Q. Yes.—A. All of my testimony is given as my opinion. 

Q. Opinion evidence; that is what I want to understand. You had it abso¬ 
lute, and that is the reason I asked that. Now, then, we turn to group No. 1. 
The first ballot there, apparently on the face is a straight Republican ballot, 
and the only cross that appears off the Republican column is the cross before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz and a cross before the name Joseph Petlak, 
running for representative; is that correct?—A. That is right. 

Q. Representative in the general assembly. And you still are of the opinion 
that this cross in this ballot made before Stanley Kunz’s name is the same as 
the one you have already testified to in this precinct in these two groups we 
have just passed?—A. I am. 

Q. Now, the second ballot in this group No. 1 apparently has a cross in the 
Republican circle, and no other crosses, except a few in the squares before 
Democratic candidates’ names; is that correct?—A. That is correct. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


37 


Q. Namely, before Stanley Henry Kunz for Representative in Congress, and 
under the head of “ For representatives in general assembly,” Joseph Petlak, 
Joseph A. Trandel, and James M. Donlin, each one has a cross in the square 
before their names?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you to look at these four crosses and say if, in your opinion, 
they were made by the same person?—A. They were. 

Q. The next ballot, namely, the third of this group, I believe, there is ap¬ 
parently a cross in the Republican circle and no other cross on the ballot 
except a cross in the squares before the names of some Democratic candidates, 
as follows: A cross in the square before William Ryan, running for State 
treasurer; a cross before George F. Jackson, running on the Democratic bal¬ 
lot for clerk of the supreme court; a cross before Stanley Henry Kunz, running 
for Representative in Congress of the eighth congressional district; a cross be¬ 
fore Joseph Petlak, running for representative in the general assembly; a 
cross before Michael L. Igoe, running for State’s attorney; for recorder of 
deeds, F. J. Crowe, a cross; for Walter La Buy, running for clerk of the circuit 
court; and for county surveyor, John Kozinski; and those are all the crosses, 
are they?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you look at the crosses in the Democratic squares and tell me whether, 
in your opinion, they are made by the same party or not on that ballot?— 
A. No, sir; in my opinion, they were not. 

Q. Which ones were made by the same man that put the cross before Stanley 
Henry Ivunz's name, if any?—A. The cross in front of the name William Ryan 
and the cross in front of the name George F. Johnson, were made by the same 
party-- 

Q. Were made by the same party that made the one before Kunz’s name?— 
A. Were made by the man that made the cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top. 

Q. And the rest were they all made by the same man, in your judgment?—A. 
In my opinion, they were. 

Q. How many are there?—A. Six. 

Q. So that if they were marked, as my friend has insinuated, after the polls 
were closed, the same fellow marked those six crosses, is that right?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Have you any method, or do you know of any method known to science, 
imagination, or law, by which you can tell whether the ballots were marked 
before or after the polls closed?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You have not?—A. No, sir. 

Q. So that the suggestion of record made by Brother Ayers has no founda¬ 
tion on your testimony; is that correct?—A. I don’t know anything about that 
part of it. 

Q. All you know is that they do not look good to you; is that it?—A. They 
don't look good to me. 

Q. Now, the next ballot we have is marked, apparently, in the Republican 
circle?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And has no other, that I discover, crosses anywhere except before the 
names of a few Democratic candidates, as follows: A cross before Stanley 
Henry Kunz and Representative Joseph Petlak and Joseph A. Trandel and 
John Kozinski for county surveyor; is that correct?—A. That is right. 

Q. Are they all made by the same person, outside of the one in the Republi¬ 
can circle, in your opinion?—A. In my opinion they were. 

Q. And you think they are all different than the one in the Republican 
circle?—A. I do. 

Q. Is there any difference in the color?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is the difference—do you mean the color or shade?—A. Well, it is 
not so much the color or shade; it is the degree of hardness of the pencil. 

Q. Then, in your opinion, the pencil that put the mark in the Republican circle 
was a different pencil, by reason of its hardness or softness, compared to the 
one which made the cross before the Democratic candidates?—A. It was. 

Q. The next ballot is marked in the Republican circle with a cross in lead 
pencil; is that right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And also has a cross before Frank S. Righeimer, running for judge of the 
county ctmrt on the Republican ticket, and a cross before Robert E. Crowe, 
running for State’s attorney on the Republican ticket; is that right?—A. That 
is right. 

Q. And a cross before the Democratic candidate for recorder of deeds, T. J. 
Crowe?—A. Yes, sir. 




38 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. And Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, then, is the mark before Stanley Kunz, in the square before Stanley 
Kunz, similar to any one of these four that I have just read—Righeimer, Kunz, 
Crowe, and the other Crowe?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were they all made by the same man?—A. In my opinion they were. 

Q. And they all differ from the Republican Party circle cross?—A. At the 
top; yes, sir. 

Q. Because of the density of the lead pencil?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All the ballots that I have examined you on and that Mr. Ayers examined 
you on were all marked in lead pencil, were they not?—A. l T es, sir. 

Q. And none in ink?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And no other method of marking?—A. No, sir. 

Q. I am obliged to you. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Ayers : 

Q. Calling your attention to the two marks at the head of the Democratic, 
in the circle at the head of the Democratic and Socialist ballots in Group No. 2, 
consisting of one ballot, are either of those marks, in your opinion, made by 
the same hand that made the cross in the square in front of Stanley Kunz’s 
name on any of the eight contested ballots?—A. I don’t think so. 

Q. In determining which are the genuine and which are the short penciled 
or unlawful markings on the ballot, is that determined by the number of marks 
made on any one particular ballot, or by a comparison of the marks on the 
different ballots?—A. By comparison of the marks on the different ballots, 
taking all the ballots as a whole. 

Q. Now, when I made my objection to the counting of these ballots on the 
ground that they were all marked in front of Stanley Kunz’s name by the same 
hand, counsel asked of you if my objection was based upon your testimony. 
Your testimony, I understand, is that these marks were all made by the same 
hand in front of Kunz on all of these ballots?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Therefore, my objection based upon that fact, and contending that those 
are unlawful marks, would be based upon your testimony to that extent, would 
it not?—A. It would; yes, sir. 

Mr. Ayers. That is all. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 a. m., Tuesday, April 
26, 1921.) 

April 26, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., April 26, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay and Mr. Wallace Streeter, on 
behalf of the contestee. 

THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. Ayers. By stipulation, a ballot box is placed upon the table, that has an 
inscription on its face showing that it is a ballot box in the third precinct of the 
sixteenth ward. Entered in figures also under the head “ Democratic ” is as 


follows: 

Men_135 

Women_ 85 

Under the head “ Republican ” : 

Men_ 92 

Women_ 23 


No Socialist. 

The statement appears to be signed by three judges of election. One of the 
flaps appears to be sealed and the other one is loose. The rope around the box 
is also loose. 

The poll book recites on the face that it is a poll book of the third precinct of 
the sixteenth ward, and also has recorded the following: % 


Number of men votes_:_235 

Number of women votes_131 

Total_366 










parrillo vs. kunz. 


39 


The cei tificate on the inside recites that it was held at the house of Josephine 
Fink, 20-7 North Lincoln Street, and that it appears to be signed by the three 
judges and two clerks of election. 

t r ^« num ^ er names entered on the poll list within the poll book appears to 
be 366. 

By stipulation, you will proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, 
as you have in previous precincts. 

April 27, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m. April 27, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf ot the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

The Commissioner. The hearing will come to order, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Ayers. It is stipulated that the tally of the recount in this precinct may 
be read into the record. 

Mr. Asay. We will say it is agreed, on the recount of the alleged ballots, that 
the following are the totals received by each, the contestant and the contestee, 
that are unchallenged and uncontested, is that correct? 

Mr. Ayers. Yes. 

Mr. Asay. Go ahead, now, and read it into the record. 

The Tallier. Third precinct of the sixteenth ward. 


Ballots cast for Kunz: 

Men---166 

Women_ 97 


Total_263 


Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men___ 49 

Women_ 26 


Total_ 75 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 6 

Women_ 4 


Total_ 10 


Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_ 8 

Women_ 3 


Total_ 11 


Total vote: 

Men_229 

Women__130 


Total___359 


Five ballots challenged by contestant, not counted, to be sealed in envelope, 
then sealed in ballot box. 

Mr. Asay. I would suggest that will be all right, if you add the words—let me 
make a suggestion here; have that read: “ Five ballots challenged by contestant 
and not counte'd for either party to this contest.” 

Mr. Ayers. All right, let the record so show. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was called as a witness on behalf of contestant and, 
being further examined in chief by Mr. Ayers, testified as follows: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, are you the same Mr. Rounds who was examined day before 
yesterday and qualified as an expert, and testified in reference to certain ballots 






























40 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


that were challenged in another precinct in this contest, which was the second 
precinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. I am. 

Q. Now I will ask you, have you made a careful and critical examination, under 
the magnifying glass, of the markings on the five challenged ballots that have 
been held out in this precinct?—A. I have. 

Q. Have you assembled those ballots into groups of similar character?—A. I 
have. 

Q. Have you found a cross mark in front of Stanley H. Kunz’s name on two 
or more of these ballots, to have been made by the same hand?—A. I have. 

Q. On how many?—A. On three ballots in group No. 1, and two ballots in 
group No. 2. 

Q. Were they made by the same hand in both groups?—A. No, sir; by a dif¬ 
ferent person in each group. 

Q. But by the same hand on each ballot in each group?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, how many ballots are in group No. 1?—A. Group No. 1 consists of 
three men’s ballots. 

Q. And how many does group No. 2 consist of?—A. Two men’s ballots. 

Q. Will you describe what you found in reference to the markings on the ballots 
in group No. 1?—A. I found that of the three ballots in group No. 1, each of 
the three was marked in the Republican Party circle at the top, by a different 
and distinct hand. I found that besides other crosses on the ballots there is a 
cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, on each of these ballots, and 
that the cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on these three ballots 
was, in my opinion, made by one and the same hand, and a different hand than 
the hand that made the cross in the party circle at the top of these three ballots. 

Mr. Ayers. Contestant, Parrillo, challenges the three men’s ballots in group 
No. 1, above described by Mr. Rounds, on the ground that they were voted by 
the lawful voters of contestant, Parrillo, for Congress; that after the polls 
closed and the ballots were removed from the ballot box, during the counting 
period in the polling place, these ballots were wrongfully and unlawfully 
marked for Stanley Kunz and unlawfully counted for him. We contend that 
they were cast by the legal voters for contestant and should be counted for 
contestant, and that number deducted from the total vote oti Kunz in this 
precinct. 

Mr. Asay. Mr. Ayers, may I ask you a question right there? 

Mr. Ayres. Surely. 

Mr. Asay. Get this down in the record. You do not contend that these three 
ballots you speak of are credited to Mr. Kunz in the recount, do you? 

Mr. Ayers. No ; they had not been counted. 

Mr. Asay. So that when you say deducted from the Kunz total, you mean 
deducted from the final count? 

Mr. Ayers. Yes. 

Mr. Asay. That is all right. 

Mr. Ayers. As shown by the proclamation of the canvassing board. 

Mr. Asay. Yes. 

By Mr. Ayers : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I will ask you to describe the markings on the ballots in 
group No. 2.—A. Group No. 2 consists of two men’s ballots, one of them marked 
in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, the other one marked 
in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot. Each of these crosses were 
made by a different and distinct hand. There is a cross in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz, on each of these ballots, in addition to other crosses on 
the ballots. The cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, on each of 
these two ballots, was-made by one and the same person, it being a different 
person than the person who made the crosses, either of the crosses, in the party 
circles at the top of these two ballots. 

Q. I believe I overlooked asking you, Mr. Rounds, how you have marked or 
labeled these two groups that you have testified to?—A. I have identified these 
groups by pinning a piece of paper to each group, on which was marked an 
identification of “No. 1” upon the first group, and “ No. 2” upon the second 
group, in addition to my personal notes. 

Mr. Ayers. Contestant Parrillo challenges both of the men’s ballots in group 
No. 2, on the ground that they were both marked for contestee, Kunz, by the 
same hand. It is our contention that one of the ballots was legally voted for 
contestant, Parrillo, but after the polls closed was changed by some person who 
unlawfully marked in front of Kunz’s name. 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


41 


That the other ballot in this group was marked by the voter by placing a 
cross in the circle at the head of the Socialist ticket, and thereby voting for the 
Socialist candidate for Congress, Henry Stockbridge. 

We contend that these ballots were both unlawfully counted for Ivunz, when 
they should have been counted, one for Parrillo and the other for Stockbridge, 
and we contend now that they should be so counted on this recount. 

These ballots will be folded and placed in a large envelope, which will be 
sealed by the board of election commissioners, and the envelope in turn placed 
within the ballot box, with the other ballots, which I will call the uncontested 
ballots, and all of them sealed up together in the ballot box, and the ballot box 
returned to the vault, to remain there in the possession of the board of election 
commissioners until further action by the committee of Congress. 

Mr. Asay. That applies to the other precinct, the second precinct, too? 

Mr. Ayers. The same proceeding was also had in reference to the second 
precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record so show. 

Mr. Ayers. Yes. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, have you any method of telling which cross was put—assum¬ 
ing there were any crosses put in after the closing of the polls, which one was 
put in? I am talking to you now as an expert on handwriting. Or, to qualify 
it—to simplify it—do you know which one of those crosses were made first?— 
A. Only from drawing a conclusion. 

Q. As a handwriting expert?—A. From the fact that the two marks appear¬ 
ing upon different ballots being the same I would naturally draw the conclu¬ 
sion, partially from my experience as a handwriting expert and partially from 
my general experience as a man, that those marks would have been put on last. 

Q. Your testimony in regard to your conclusion, or your opinion in refer¬ 
ence to the two ballots in Group No. 2 is based upon your opinion that both the 
crosses in the square before Stanley Kunz’s name were made by the same 
person; isn’t that true?—A. Yes; and that they are entirely different from the 
other marks appearing upon the ballots. 

Q. And in your opinion they were made by a person different than the per¬ 
son who marked the rest of the ballot?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, what is your reason or reasons for saying they were made by the 
same person?—A. First, that the character of the strokes have the same gen¬ 
eral vacillating or indefinite sort of a movement. 

Q. You say a vacillating and indefinite movement, and you use the word 
character. You mean that by looking at them they look as though they were 
made by the same person ; isn’t that so?—A. They do ; yes, sir. 

Q. In your opinion?—A.. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that is the real test that you are applying with reference to those 
ballots?—A. Yes; that they appear to be the same pencil. 

Q. The same pencil and the same person?—A. And having the same general 
characteristics; yes, sir. 

Q. How about Group No. 1 there? You say those three ballots were marked 
by the same person ; is that correct?—A. In my opinion, they were; yes, sir. 

Q. That is, this cross before Stanley Kunz’s name?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You don’t know whether those ballots—any of those ballots or all of 
them—you don’t know whether or not they were voted by the same person—I 
mean by the same class of persons—illiterate persons—do you? You can’t tell 
whether they were illiterate or not?—A. To any great degree, no; I could 
not tell. 

Q. Can you tell, in otlier words, whether or not the voters, or any of them 
or all of tiiem, who voted these five ballots in groups Nos. 1 and 2, had assist¬ 
ance from the judges and clerks of election in marking their ballots under the 
law?—A. I would have no way of telling. 

Q. You would have no way of telling that?—A. No. 

Q. You used the magnifying glass, or glasses, with reference to these, did 
you?—A. I did; yes, sir. 

Q. In this investigation?—A. In this investigation, I did; yes, sir. 

Q. In plain language, how many times the size of the crosses—how many 
times was the cross magnified? In other words, if the cross, as I understood 
you in your testimony before, the square is a cross made up of two intersecting 
line about a quarter of an inch long. Now, then, looking through the glass, 
what is the apparent size in inches or fractions thereof?—A. I have here three 
different glasses. 


42 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. What is your strongest one?—A. The strongest one magnifies just about 
double. 

Q. It makes the lines, then, appear to be half an inch long in each case; is 
that correct?—A. If they were a quarter of an inch, they would be half an inch; 
and if they were half an inch, they would be an inch. 

Mr. Asay. Now, then, the attorney for contestee moves to strike out the tes¬ 
timony of the expert, not only in the second precinct, but the same objection 
would apply in every precinct where testimony is adduced on the part of the 
contestant of this character, on the ground that there is no allegation in the 
petition, in the notice of contest, or in the petition of contest brought by the 
contestant against Stanley H. Kunz involving any question of fraud, and hence 
the evidence is without any allegation to sustain its admission. 

That is all. 

(Witness excused.) 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated between the attorneys 
for contestant and the contestee that the testimony of Mr. Rounds in answer 
to questions propounded to him by the attorney for the contestee, Stanley H. 
Kunz, stated that, in reference to the power of the different magnifying glasses 
used by him, he used the word “diameters” instead of “times,” and there is 
no objection by either party that such correction may be understood to have 
been made of record. 


FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

It was agreed between the attorneys for contestant and contestee that no de¬ 
scription of the ballot box in this precinct would be dictated into the record. 

(Whereupon the count of the ballots in the fourth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward here proceeded.) 

(Before the count in the last above-named precinct and ward were completed 
an adjournment was taken to 1.30 o’clock, the same day, April 27, 1921.) 

April 28, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., April 28, 1921, pursuant to adjourn¬ 
ment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding. Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant. Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 


FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 


The Commissioner. This hearing will resume, pursuant to adjournment here¬ 
tofore taken. 

The following result of the recount in this precinct was here read into the 
record by the tallier, as follows: 


Ballots cast for Kunz: 

Men_138 

Women_ 77 

Total_!_____215 


Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men_ 64 

Women_ 20 

Total_ 84 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 

Woinen_. 


5 

7 


Total_ 12 


Ballots cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_:_ 5 

Women__ 0 


Total 


5 
























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


43 


Total votes cast: 

Men-212 

Women___ 404 


Grand total_ 345 


The tally sheets show that 7 ballots are challenged and held out and not 
counted for anyone. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the con¬ 
testant and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Ayers, testified as follows: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you are the same person who testified before in this case, 
as an expert?—A. I am. 

Q. I will ask you if you have made a careful and critical examination, un¬ 
der the magnifying glass, of the 7 challenged ballots in this precinct?—A. I 
have. 

Q. Have you assembled those ballots into groups of similar character?—A. I 
have. 

Q. Did you find that all of them bore crosses in the square in front of the 
name of Stanley H. Kunz?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you find any two or more of those crosses to have been made by one 
and the same hand?—A. I did. In my opinion, all of the crosses in front of 
the name of Stanley H. Kunz, on both Group No. 1 and Group No. 2, were made 
by the same hand. 

Q. Now, how many ballots, and what are they, as to men and women bal¬ 
lots, are there in Group No. 1, and how many are there in Group No. 2?—A. In 
Group No. 1 there are 3 men’s ballots, in Group No. 2 there are 4 men’s ballots. 

Q. How have you labeled them, or designated them, to indicate the different 
groups?—A. Each of the groups are designated by pinning a piece of paper 
to the group, on which is a noted number, No. 1 and No. 2. 

Q. Will you describe the markings on the ballots in Group No. 1?—A. Group 
No. 1, consisting of 3 ballots, each one bearing a cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot, by three different and distinct hands. 

There is a cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of these 
3 ballots, in addition to other crosses on the ballots, and the cross in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, on each of the 3 ballots, in my opinion, was 
made by one and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made 
any one of the crosses at the top of the 3 ballots. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that is Group No. 1, isn’t it? 

The Witness. Group No. 1. 

Mr. Ayers. Contestant Parrillo challenges the 3 men’s ballots in Group No. 
1 on the ground that they were voted by the lawful voters, as straight Re¬ 
publican ballots, and thereby voting for the contestant, Parrillo, but that after 
the polls closed and the ballots were removed from the ballot box, during the 
counting period in the polling place, these ballots were unlawfully and wrong¬ 
fully marked by some person who placed a cross in the square in front of Kunz’s 
name on each and every one of these 3 ballots; that these 3 ballots were un¬ 
lawfully and wrongfully counted for Stanley Kunz, when they should have 
been counted for contestant, Parrillo, and we ask now that those ballots be 
counted for Parrillo, contestant. 

Q. Now, I will ask you, in reference to Group No. 2, will you describe the 
markings on those groups?—A. Group No. 2 consists of 4 ballots, 1 having a 
cross in the Farmer-Labor Party circle at the top of the ballot, the other 3 
men’s ballots not having any crosses in any party circle. 

Each one of these 4 ballots has a cross in front of the name of Stanley Henry 
Kunz, in addition to other crosses on the ballot, and each of these crosses in 
front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made, in my opinion, by one and the 
same hand, and the same hand that made the crosses in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz on Group No. 1, and a different hand than the hand that 
made other crosses on each of these 4 ballots in Group No. 2. 

Q. As to the first ballot which you mentioned of Group No. 2, which you say 
is marked with a cross in the circl'e at the head of the Farmer-Labor Party 
ticket, is the cross in the circle opposite the appellation “ Farmer-Labor ” 
made by the same hand which made the crosses in front of Kunz’s name on 
all of these 7 ballots?—A. In my opinion, it was not. 

Mr. Ayers. Contestant challenges the 4 ballots in Group No. 2 on the ground 
that they were marked in front of Kunz’s name by one and the same hand, 






44 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


and that these ballots were not originally cast for Kunz, the contestee, by the 
lawful voters, but that they were unlawfully and wrongfully counted for him, 
and that these ballots should not be counted for anyone, for the office of Repre¬ 
sentative, in the House of Congress. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Calling your attention to the first ballot in group No. 1, that has a cross 
in the circle before the word “ Republican,” is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it also has a cross in the square before the name of every candidate on 
the Republican ticket, except Dan Parrillo; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the only deviation from the straight Republican ticket is that it has 
a cross before the name Stanley Kunz?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you find any of the crosses made in the Republican squares under the 
Republican circle, made by the same hand that made the cross in the Republican 
circle?—A. I do. 

Q. How many do you find in a different handwriting, in the Republican column, 
in the square made by a hand different from the one in the Republican circle?— 
A. There is only one different than the one in the Republican circle. 

Q. So that in your opinion, this ballot was marked by the voter, by placing his 
cross in the Republican circle, and he marked every candidate separately in the 
Republican column except two; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then, if your assumption or opinion is correct, the gentleman who was vot¬ 
ing deliberately or otherwise left out any vote for either Edward Walsh, rep¬ 
resentative in the General Assembly of Illinois, on the Republican ticket, and 
did not vote for any candidate there and left out any vote for Congressman; is 
that correct?—A. That is correct. 

Q. Is there any sign of any mark in the square before the name Dan Parrillo?— 
A. There is not. 

Q. So, that as an expert on election crosses, you believe and it is your opinion 
that a Republican intelligent voter went in there and marked a cross in the 
Republican circle, and marked every candidate on the Republican ticket except 
two, and because there is a difference in appearance and in character between 
the two crosses, one before the name of Edward Walsh, a candidate running 
and the only candidate running on the Republican ticket for representative in 
the general assembly, and one before the name Stanley Kunz, that there must 
have been something wrong in those two crosses; is that correct?—A. That is 
part of my reasons for it; yes, sir. 

Q. I don’t ask you if that was the reason, that was the objection I was 
making. Now, will you examine very carefully, with this highest magnifying 
glass that you have got here, not the microscope, you have no microscope, 1 
believe?—A. This is a microscope. 

Q. Well, it is not what we call a compound?—A. No; it is not a compound. 

Q. It is simply a single lens?—A. Yes. 

Q. I want you to take that one, the highest power one you have got, which 
you, in answer to my question of yesterday, said that it magnified so that the 
apparent size of the object was doubled?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And look at the square before the name Dan Parrillo, and state whether 
or not there is any sign of a mark, of it having been put there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. So that it is an absolute blank?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, I will turn to the next ballot, the second one in group No. 1, and I 
will ask you to look down the squares in the Republican column?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Look down in the squares now. An inspection of that ballot reveals that 
there is a cross before the word “ Republican ” in the Republican Party circle, 
does it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is there any cross in the Republican square on the Republican ballot?— 
A. Yes, sir . 

Q. Which one—in the square running before Len Small, running for governor, 
isn’t it?—A. Yes, sir . 

Q. Was the cross before the name Len Small, made by the same man who 
made the cross at the head of the Republican ballot, in your opinion?—A. In 
my opinion, it was. 

Q. When did you examine that, just now?—A. Just now, and previously. 

Q. And the only other crosses on this ballot are one before the name Stanley 
Kunz, on the Democratic side, and before the name Michael Igoe ,for State’s 
attorney?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Four crosses in all?—A. Yes, sir. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


45 


Q. Is the cross before the name Michael Igoe made by the same man who 
made the cross in front of the name Stanley Kunz, in your opinion?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And your opinion is that those two crosses were made by a person other 
than the person who made the cross in the Republican circle, and the cross 
before the name Len Small?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What do you base that opinion on? Now, I am speaking broadly, about 
your testimony, about the similarity or dissimilarity of the crosses?—A. Well, 
first on the similarity of the two crosses, the one before Stanley Kuuz’s name, 
and the one before Michael L. Igoe’s name, as against the cross before the 
name Len Small, the one in the party circle at the top. The two crosses, the 
one in the party circle at the top, and the one before the name Len Small, each 
shoiv a suggestion of a little line going to one side, from the main stroke, 
while the two crosses in front of—one in front of the name Stanley Kunz, and 
the other in front of the name Michael L. Igoe, both are definite straight lines, 
without any tail on them. 

Q. What is the size of the tail you speak about, in fractions of inches, 
please?—A. It is very small. 

Q. It is very minute?—A. Very minute, possibly a thirty-second of an 
inch. 

Q. A thirty-second of an inch long. That is your first reason, is it?—A. That 
is one of the reasons; yes, sir. 

Q. Now, how about the size of the strokes, the width of the strokes, of the 
lead pencil strokes?—A. The width of the lead-pencil strokes, in the Republican 
Party circle at the top, and the one before Len Small, are almost identically 
the same width. The stroke going from the upper left to the lower right, 
in the Republican Party circle at the top, has the appearance of a heavier 
stroke, on account of there being two strokes, but the heft of the stroke, in 
the crosses before the name Stanley Kunz and the name Michael L. Igoe, and 
the slanting and placing of the crosses in the party circle, are practically the 
same thing, while they vary from the other two crosses. 

Q. Do you mean they are wider?—A. Well, they have been retraced several 
times. 

Q. Which have?—A. The crosses in front of the names. 

Q. In front of the names of the two Democratic candidates?—A. Yes, sir. . 

Q. That is true of the crosses in the Republican circle, isn’t it? That has 
been retraced as you call it?—A. The two strokes in one of the- 

Q. In the party circle?—A. In the party circle; yes, sir. 

Q. Are those the reasons that you base your opinion on for the statement that 
they are written by different persons in the Democratic circle rather than in 
the Republican circle, and one square?—A. Those are part of the reasons. 

Q. What are the other reasons?—A. The other reasons are that I find this 
same construction of a cross that I find in front of Stanley Kunz’s name, and 
Michael Igoe’s name, running through the other ballots in the other groups. 

Q. In the two groups?—A. In the groups; yes, sir. 

Q. Are there any other reasons?—A. Well, there is the color, and the hard¬ 
ness or the softness of the lead, which, appear to be the same. 

Q. Well, if they are the same, are they different from that in the Republican 
ticket, in the Republican square? I don’t know' what you mean, in other w'ords, 
by “the same.” When you say “are the same,” that is what?—A. Well, the 
same with each other, they are materially different from the color in the other 
two. 

Q. Then that did not affect your judgment any?—A. Not in the matter of 

color. 4 

Q. Well, then, I have asked you is there anything else than what you have 

indicated?—A. No; I think not. 

Q. Now 7 , Mr. Expert, isn’t it a fact that the reason why this particular ballot 
under consideration, the second ballot in Group No. 1, is not the reason that 
you base your opinion that the crosses made on the Democratic ticket, we wfill 
say, are made by a different person from the Republican ticket, largely because 
of this thirty-second of an inch long tail that you speak of on the Republican 
crosses, on the crosses in the Republican column, which is absent from those of 
the crosses in the Democratic column?—A. That is one reason. 

Q And the other reason, the main reason, is because, in your opinion, they 
look different, is not that correct?—A. Well, no; those are not the only reasons. 
Those were tw 7 o of a number of reasons. 



46 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 

Q. Well, now, I have asked you to give all of your reasons, and you have given 
us but three, as I understand it; but I may be wrong. If there is any number 
of reasons that you have got applicable to this ballot, let me have them?—A. 
Well, that is the construction of the stroke. 

Q. Now, what do you mean by the construction of the stroke? The stroke 
was made in every case by a lead pencil, wasn’t it, or lead pencils?—A. What 
I mean, is the individual characteristics of the construction of the stroke. 

Q. Well now, tell us what you mean by the individual characteristic of the 
construction of the stroke?—A. Both the cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top, and in the Republican square, are not made with the mechanical 
accuracy that the others are made with. They are longer, freer, and easier 
made strokes, while the strokes in the Democratic column are heavier, retraced 
strokes. 

Q. You say they are longer strokes in the Republican column under considera¬ 
tion?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Than they are in the Democratic column?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In construction?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I call your attention to the square before Len Small’s name, which is the 
same sized square as the ones before the two Democrats, and I will ask you 
what is the difference in the length of the stroke? Is there any difference in 
the length of the stroke?—A. A slight difference. 

Q. How much, in inches, or fractions thereof?—A. Well, possibly- 

Q. I am asking about Ivunz, now, remember, and Len Small?—A. Well, pos¬ 
sibly a thirty-secondth of an inch, or something like that. 

Q. Which is the longer stroke?—A. The cross stroke, going from the upper 
left to the lower right in front of Small, is slightly longer than the same stroke 
before Kunz, but that part is not so much the part that I am trying to get at, 
as the fact of the mechanical inaccuracy of the construction. The cross in 
front of I^en Small, while the upper left-hand stroke goes to the very corner, 
the stroke crossing that, making the cross, is much more nearer vertical, not 
going from corner to corner,, but almost vertical. 

Now, we have that same character in the Republican Party circle at the top, 
and with this line which crosses going very nearly vertical, is taller from the 
center of the cross to the top than the other stroke which goes over into the 
upper left-hand corner, which characteristic is the same as it is in the Repub¬ 
lican Party circle at the top. 

Q. Do you make any point, or has it any effect on your judgment, as to what 
angle the two lines in the crosses or squares cross each other at?—A. Yes. 

Q. I don’t know whether I make myself plain or not.—A. l T es. 

Q. That is a factor, is it?—A. I noticed that; yes, sir. 

Q. All right. Now I call your attention to the cross before the word “Re¬ 
publican,” in the Republican circle, a vertical line; I will call one vertical and 
the other one a horizontal line; is that all right?—A. That is all right. 

Q. Now, the vertical line there is more vertical than it is before the name 
Len Small, or is it very close to the same thing?—A. It is very close to the 
same thing. \ 

Q. Do they cross on the same angle, the two lines in the Republican circle 
and the one before Small’s name?—A. Well, practically, as near as the human 
hand would naturally do it. 

Q. Do the crosses before the two Democratic candidates referred to, in the 
squares, have the same accuracy of—the same similarity of angle at which 
the two lines meet, comparing just the two Democratic crosses, one with the 
other?—A. They have*a small difference, comparing one with the other. 

Q. That would be a factor to show that they were made by different persons, 
would it?—A. Not necessarily, for this reason, that there is about the difference 
there that you would naturally expect in a person making two crosses. 

Q. So that you do not attach very much importance as to the angle at which 
the two lines cross, do you, as a matter of fact?—A. Not. a great deal; that is 
only just one element. 

Q. Now, you have told all the elements that form your opinion on that ballot, 
have you not?—A. I think so; yes, sir. 

Q. In this discussion—we will call it. discussion—with reference to th,e second 
ballot in Group No. 1, as I said at the outset, there are but four crosses; that 
is correct, is it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, there are three of those crosses made in little squares, the size of 
which, as compared to the circle, the party circle, is less than half; is that 
correct?—A. Yes, sir. 





PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


47 


Q. So that the marks which we are talking about here in the squares are 
only half the extent or length, several lines in the squares, that they are in the 
party circle?—A. That is true. 

Q. And it would be easier as a matter of common knowledge, attributable to 
every person who is or claims to be an expert, it would be more easy to detect 
anything wrong, or to pass an opinion as to whether marks were made by per¬ 
sons other than—by different persons on a ballot sheet, it would be easier to 
detect such discrepancy by reason of the length of the lines, wouldn’t it, in the 
party circle and in one candidate square? In other words, you would have a 
line double the length to compare with?—A. That would be true, if you had a 
lot of crosses- 

Q. In the circles?—A. As would be in the party circles at the top of the 
ballots. 

Q. Well, that is what I said.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In other words, it is easier to detect the genuineness and the conterfitness 
of a series of crosses that cross one another, where they are double the length, 
than it would be where they are half the length, wouldn’t it be?—A. From some 
standards it would, and other standards it would not. 

Q. Could you determine the validity, do you think, of a line one-eighth of an 
inch long, whether two lines were made by two persons, could you tell whether 
they were made by two different persons?—A. In most cases, no. 

Q. Could you, if they were one-eighth of an inch long?—A. In most cases, no. 

Q. How long are those in the squares, here?—A. Well, this here, is a quarter 
of an inch. 

Q. Could you, in a quarter of an inch?—A. Not if it was one perfectly 
straight line, no. 

Q. Would you be willing to stand this test, that if Mr. Ayers and myself be¬ 
fore we got through with this proceeding, were to make a dozen crosses each, we 
will go into a room and make a number of crosses, do you think you could 
tell which ones were made by the same man and which ones were not?—A. I 
could if one man was not copying from the other man. In other words, if one 
man was forging the other man’s characteristics, with so small a thing as a 
cross, the examination would be so limited that I would not even try. 

Q. Then, in connection with these ballots that we are going over, where it 
is a fact, we will say, that a person was fraudulently marking a ballot, if he 
attempted to imitate the crosses made by the original voter, you would say it 
would be pretty hard to discover that, wouldn’t you?—A. It would be hard, 
yes, sir. 

Q. It would all depend upon the skill of the fellow who made it?—A. It would 
depend entirely upon the skill. 

Q. And you think Frank Ayers and myself would be too skilful for you to 
detect us, do you??—A. Well, I have no idea as to how skillful you are in 
counterfeiting. 

Q. Well, you had better assume that we could copy each other pretty well.— 
A. All right. 

Q. Now, on the third ballot—let me see where that is. Now, the third ballot 
in this Group No. 1 has got a cross with a fairly heavy line going from north¬ 
west to southeast in the Republican circle, hasn’t it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And a fairly light line compared to that first line going from southwest 
to northeast, has it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Approximately, they are the points of the compass?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Using the top. Of course, you understand I am using the top of the circle 
as the north, do you not?—A. I understand. 

Q. As scientific gentlemen always do—A. In geography; yes, sir. 

Q. Now, "that cross is in the Republican circle, isn’t it?—A. It is. 

Q. And getting down to an examination of the entire ballot, we find on the 
ticket labeled “Democratic,” in the squares before Stanley FI. Kunz, Joseph 
Petlak, and Joseph A. Trandel, three crosses made, do we not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it not true that they are made with substantially the same kind of a 
pencil mark? I am speaking of the heaviness of it now. 

Mr. Ayers. As what? 

Mr. Asay. As the one in the party circle, in the Republican Party circle, on 
the heavy line. 

A Yes sir. 

q! Now, in vour opinion, were the three crosses on the Democratic ticket 
before the Democratic candidates in the little squares—were they made by the 
same person?—A. I think they were. 

96674—22-4 



48 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


Q. Now, then, I call your attention—and you think the three Democratic 
candidates’ marks were not marked by the same person that marked the Re¬ 
publican ticket in the circle?—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Now I call your attention to Joseph Petlak’s cross, and I will ask you to 
tell me whether or not it is not a fact that the cross before the name Joseph 
Petlak is made with a lighter stroke and has not been written over—that is, 
has not been stroked over the second time; that is correct, isn’t it?—A. That 
is correct. 

Q. That is made by a lighter stroke and is made by an entirely different 
angle of crossing of the two marks constituting the cross than that in the cross 
before the name of Stanley H. Kunz?—A. It has a different location in the 
square, but- 

Q. Well, the lines do not cross at the same place, do they?—A. Not on the 
one in Petlak. 

Q. That is what I said.—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. As compared to Stanley Kunz’s?—A. Not quite. 

Q. Now, in the cross before the name Joseph A. Trandel, we find—and correct 
me if I am wrong—we find a heavy double line running from the northwest to 
the southeast, do we not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And a thinner line intersecting that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Running from the southwest to the northeast?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in the Stanley Kunz cross we find two or more marks running north¬ 
east and southwest, don’t we?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Traveling southeast and northwest?—A. We do. 

Q. So that the crosses do not appear to a casual observer to be made by the 
same person, do they?—A. To me they do. 

Q. You think the same fellow made the Petlak cross that hiade the Kunz 
cross?—A. I do. 

Q. And for, I presume, the same reasons that you have given, substantially, in 
connection with the examination on the other ballots?—A. Yes, and one other. 

Q. What is the other reason?—A. I believe that here on these crosses, that 
after having made the cross before the name Stanley Kunz, that these other two 
crosses were made by the same hand; but in a much more careless way, in order 
to- 

Q. Well, never mind, I don’t care what your deductions are. I simply want to 
know what your opinion is about these crosses.—A. All right. 

Q. They were made then—finish that answer will you and cut our your assump¬ 
tion. They were made in a' more careless manner, were they?—A. Yes. We will 
stop there. 

Q. We will stop there?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, that is what I prefer, because I don’t care to cross-examine you on 
that subject. That is the only distinction you make there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. As an expert on chirography, do you believe it is possible for you, under 
oath, to state that you have an opinion, based on evidence, scientific evidence, 
whereby you can state, under oath, that the Stanley Kunz cross was put in after 
the one placed—or before the one placed before the name of Joseph Petlak or 
Joseph A. Trandel? In other words, what I am trying to find out is, do you mean 
to say as an expert, that you can tell us now that you have an opinion, founded 
not upon guesswork, but founded upon scientific knowledge, that the cross before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made before the cross before the name Joseph 
Petlak or Joseph A. Trandel?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You can not?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That is what I thought. That is all on that proposition. Now, let me see 
Group No. 2. Will you put that together?—A. I will. 

Mr. Asay. It is understood, Mr. Ayers, that the expert is sealing them up again 
just as he had them. He is putting them together just as he had them. 

Mr. Ayers. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Asay. I have not touched them except to look at them during my exami¬ 
nation. 

Q. Now, with the exception of the first ballot in Group No. 2, we have what 
I presume it is fair for me as ask you, we have what we all know are straight 
ballots; that i,s, ballots containing no party circle except the first one, no cross 
in the party circle?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the Farmer-Labor ticket on this official business has no candidate 
running for a number of offices, isn’t that true?—A. Yes. 

Q. Among which there is no candidate for Representative in Congress?—A. 
Yes; that is true. 




PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


49 


Q. So that the putting of a cross in the Farmer-Labor circle has nothing what¬ 
ever assuming all crosses are genuine here—has nothing whatever to do with 
the vote on Representative in Congress, isn’t that correct?—A. That is correct. 

Q. Now, then, directing you to the crosses on this ballot, how many crosses 
are there, exclusive of the one in the circle before Farmer-Labor?—A. Five. 

Q. Five crosses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. lhere is a cross before the name James Hamilton Lewis, running for gov¬ 
ernor on the Democratic ticket, is there not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There is a cross before the name Arthur W. Charles, running for secretary 
of state on the Democratic ticket, is there not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And there is a cross before the name Stanley H. Kunz, running for Congress 
on the Democratic ticket, is there not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And there is a cross—and for which office the Farmer-Labor Party have no 
candidate, isn’t that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There is also a cross before the name Joseph Petlak?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On the Democratic ticket, running for representative in the general as¬ 
sembly, is there not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There is no candidate under the Farmer-Labor ticket for that office, is 
there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And Michael L. Igoe, running for the office of State’s attorney on the 
Democratic ticket, is there a cross before his name?—A. There is. 

Q. There is a candidate running for the same office on the Farmer-Labor 
ticket, is there not?—A. There is. 

Q. And these are all the crosses there are?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In other words there is one in the Farmer-Labor circle and there are five 
crosses before candidates on the Democratic ticket?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the cross, in your opinion, made before the name Michael L. Igoe, in 
the square there, and the cross made in the square before the name Joseph 
Petlak, and the cross in the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, were 
they all made by the same party?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And all made by a person different than the one who put the cross before 
the Farmer-Labor name?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you base that substantially upon the same reasons that you gave in 
connection with the last ballot that I examined you about in Group No. 1?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And speaking of the color of the lead that we spoke about, or rather that 
you spoke about, would that be affected on the ballot by the voter after making 
the cross one place, by wetting the lead in the pencil and making it in another 
place?—A. It will affect the color. 

Q. Would it affect the size or width of the marks where a man making a 
number of crosses on a ballot—here are some four or five hundred candidates 
running on this ballot, are there not? I don’t know how many there are. Do 
you know how many there are, Frank? 

Mr. Ayers. I don’t know how many there are, but I think there are about 
300. 

By Mr. As ay : 

Q. About 300; is that correct?—A. Apparently; yes, sir. 

Q. Now, assume that he wanted to mark a man separately for each office?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then there are about 80 candidates on the Republican ticket, about 80 
candidates on the Democrataic ticket, ami 80 candidates on most of these 
tickets, isn’t that correct?—A. I think it is just under 60, isn’t it? 

Mr. Ayers. Seventy. 

By Mr. Asay : 

Q. Well, we will say about 60 candidates. Change that to 60. So that if a 
man wanted to vote a straight Republican ticket, as we had one instance a 
moment ago, placing a cross in the Republican circle, and then marking each 
candidate separately, he would have to make as many as sixty-odd crosses, 
wouldn’t he?—A. Approximtely; yes, sir. 

Q. Can you imagine, or do you believe that it is reasonable to suppose that 
a man in marking it wore out the lead on the end of his pencil and that it made 
a broader stroke than it did when he got there? In other words, let us assume 
that he may have gone there with a sharp pencil, and after using it, it got dull 
before he got through?—A. Why, the degree upon which it would broaden out 
would depend upon the hardness of the pencil that was being used. 


50 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. Well, that is an absolute scientific fact, is it not, that after using a pencil 
a number of times it wears the pencil down so that it gets dull, no matter 
whether it is a hard or a soft pencil, doesn’t it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the practical result is that it broadens out when he is making a 
mark unless he resharpens the pencil; isn’t that true?—A. In a degree. 

Q. Now, have you examined the lead on any one of these ballots so far, 
either mechanically or in any other way, to determine whether a hard lead 
pencil was used or not?—A. Only by the glass. 

Q. That is the sole test that you put on any ballot, isn’t it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, the next ballot, the second one under your pin, has no party circle 
marked and is what I characterized a moment ago as a split ballot; isn’t that 
correct, or is it a straight ballot? 

(No answer by the witness.) 

Q. Now, on this ballot No. 2, of Group No. 2, how many crosses, in the squares 
on the whole ballot, or in the circles on the whole ballot here before us or on 
this ballot—that is not in the circle—I didn’t ask you that, I didn’t ask you 
in the circle, but in the squares; how many crosses are there?—A. There are 
four crosses in the squares. 

Q. Are there any crosses in any of the party circles or in any of the candi¬ 
dates’ squares on the entire ballot?—A. What was your question again? 

Mr. Asay. Read it, please. 

(Whereupon the question was here read by the stenographer.) 

Q. Other than four?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And the said four crosses consist, do they not, of a cross made before the 
name Stanley H. Kunz for Representative in Congress, the name Joseph Petlak, 
the name Joseph A. Trandel, and the name James W. Donlin?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The latter three gentlemen being candidates for Representatives in the 
General Assembly of Illinois; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All on the Democratic ticket; isn’t that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were all four crosses made by the same man, in your opinion?—A. No; 
I don’t think so. 

Q. You don’t make any distinction between the word “ think ” and the word 
“ opinion,” do you?—A. No, sir. 

Q. It is your opinion that they were made by the same man?—A. It is my 
opinion that they were not. 

Q. Which ones were made by the same person, or how many were made by 
the same person, in your opinion?—A. I think the crosses in front of the 
names Stanley Henry Kunz and Joseph Petlak were made by the same hand, 
and that the crosses in front of the names Trandel and Donlin were made by a 
different hand. 

Q. Have you any scientific basis for that opinion?—A. That is my opinion. 

Q. Well, is that opinion based on any scientific observation or examination 
that you have made, that would lead you to believe which one of these two 
groups, namely, the two crosses, one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and 
one before the name Joseph Petlak, and the other group consisting of the 
crosses, one before the name Joseph A. Trandel and the other before the name 
James W. Donlin, which one was made by the man who put the vote in the 
box?—A. There has nothing developed in the course of the investigation that 
would show that. 

Q. All right. Then, you have nothing in the way of scientific observation 
upon which to base an opinion on that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. All you know is, that from your observation and examination, your opinion 
is that two of them were made by one person and two of them were made by 
another person?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is correct, is it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I want you to look at Dan Parrillo’s name now, carefully, in the square. 
Do you find any cross or any attempted mark whatever in the square before the 
name Dan Parrillo?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And the only candidate for Congress on that ballot marked with a cross is 
the name of Stanley Henry Kunz, is it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is all on that feature of it. Notf', on the next ballot I will call your 
attention not exclusively to the crosses before the name of any candidate," but 
simply to the crosses or absence of crosses in the party circle—well, there isn’t 
any party circle on this ballot, is there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Now, then, there are how many crosses before candidates on the Republican 
ticket in the squares before their names?—A. Six. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


51 


Q. How many crosses are there on the Democratic side in the squares before 
the names of the various candidates?—A. Twenty-four. 

Q. That is 30 crosses altogether, is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, how many of these 30 crosses, in your opinion, were made by the 
same man or woman—make it person—how many of these 30 crosses, in your 
opinion, were made by the same person?—A. In my opinion the cross in front 
of the name Ivunz, the cross in front of the name Petlak, and the cross in front 
of the name Brady were made by the same hand. 

Q. Well, how about the other 33, were they made by the same hand, and all 
by the same hand or all by one hand?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you base your opinion on the same reason and the same way?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. l T ou don’t know which one, of course, of this group of crosses were made 
first?—A. No, sir; I couldn’t tell that scientifically. 

Q. You might be able to tell it politically but not scientifically, is that it?— 

(No answer by the witness.) 

Q. Now, I will call your attention to the last ballot of Group No. 2. In 
this ballot there are no crosses whatever, nor attempted crosses, are there, in 
the party circles?—A. No, sir. 

Q. The only crosses that you find by an inspection of this ballot, or that 
you found by an inspection of this ballot, are crosses before the names of 
separate candidates running on the Democratic ticket, exclusively; isn’t that 
correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And under the group of electors you find one, and only one, elector crossed 
in the square before his name; is that right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you find before the candidate on the Democratic ticket, James 
Hamilton Lewis, for governor, you find a cross made there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is two crosses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you find a cross made before the name Stanley H. Ivunz?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Three crosses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you find a cross before the name Joseph Petlak?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Four crosses?—A. l r es, sir. 

Q. That is, making four crosses in all, I mean?—A. l"es, sir. 

Q. And Walter J. LaBuy?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Five crosses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And John Kozinski for county surveyor; is that right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Six crosses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you acquainted with any of these gentlemen whose names I have 
just read to you?—A. Not personally. 

Q. Do you know what nationality, exclusive of Mr. Lewis, they all belong 
to?—A. I couldn’t say. 

Q. Do you know what nationality the voters are composed of in this precinct 
in this ward?—A. No, sir. Poles probably. , 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, were the crosses before the different candidates in the 
Democratic column, as I have just named them, made by the same person in 
your opinion?—A. I think they all were except the one in front of the name 
of James Hamilton Lewis. 

Q. In other words you think that all of these crosses were made by the same 
person, except the cross before the name James Hamilton Lewis, is that cor¬ 
rect?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Does that include the elector, too?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And for the same reasons? That is, you think this Stanley Ivunz ballot 
is not marked as cast, for the reasons that you have given us in the other in- 
stancGS?_A Yes sii\ 

Q. Have you any method of telling us whether the ballot was originally cast 
for James Hamilton Lewis alone of all these candidates and the other five put 
in afterwards, or whether the other five were put in first?—A. l r es, sir. 

Q. You have?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is it?—A. The fact that the cboss in front of the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz is, in my opinion, mechanical and individual and done with the 
game pencil as all of the crosses through the other ballots that I have examined. 

Q. That is your reason?—A. In addition to these reasons which you have 
brought out by cross-examination. 

Q. Then if that is true, then every one of these five other crosses, that you 
say were made by the same person that made the cross in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz, are, in your opinion, subject to the same criticism, are 
they not?—A. Yes, sir. 


52 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. And all five, including the one for elector, were made by the same man?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the only one that is different from that is the one before the name 
of James Hamilton Lewis?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Ayers. Well, your last question there covers my redirect. 

Mr. Asay. Y r es; his last explanation. That had not been made until now. 

The Witness. That is my one big reason on this bunch, that this same mark 
runs entirely throughout the bunch. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that these challenged ballots will be folded 
and placed in a large envelope and sealed; that the said envelope will be 
placed in the ballot box with the unchallenged ballots, and all sealed in the 
ballot box together, and the ballot box returned to the vault in the custody of 
the election commissioners to be held subject to the decision and direction of 
the Committee on Elections of the House of Representatives. 

FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. • 

The following procedings were had in the presence of the commissioner, Guy 
C. Crapple; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; and Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee: 

Mr. Ayers. Let. the record show that it is stipulated that the ballot box of 
the fifth precinct of the sixteenth ward shows on its face that there were 222 
Democratic men’s votes cast and 104 Democratic women’s votes cast. There 
are no figures in any of the other blanks, which might, indicate that the figures 
I have just read were the totals for that precinct entered in the written blank 
space. The statement is signed apparently by two judges. The ballot box 
appears to be crowded with papers, presumably ballots. One end does not 
come together by about a half an inch. The other end overlaps about an inch. 
There is a rope around the box two ways. The rope could be removed and the 
box could be opened without breaking any seals. The flaps attached to the 
upper part of the box at each end are loose. They do not appear to ever have 
been sealed or fastened. They do not appear to be long enough to come down 
to the bottom of the box where the sticky material is placed for the purpose 
of sealing the flaps. 

The poll book shows on its face that it is the fifth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward, and the number of votes cast, in that precinct, as indicated on the face 
of the poll book, is as follows: 

Number of men voters_222 

Number of women voters_104 


Total_326 

The certificate on the inside of the cover of the poll book states that the elec¬ 
tion was held at the house of Daniel Walsh, 1800 Cortland, and appears to be 
signed by three judges and three clerks. There also appears to be 326 names 
and addresses entered in the poll'book. 

Now you can open the ballot box and proceed to count the ballots, as you 
have in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon, before the count proceeded, an adjournment was here taken 
to 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, April 28, 1921. The count, not having been 
completed and read into the record, a further adjournment was taken to the 
hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., April 29, 1921.) 


April 29, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., April 29, 1921, pursuant to adjourn¬ 
ment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the ballot box of the sixth precinct, of 
the sixteenth ward shows on its face, in addition to the above precinct and 
ward, as follows: 


Democratic: 

Men votes__ 84 

Women votes_46 








PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


53 


Republican: 

Men votes_ 12o 

Women votes_ 50 

Socialist: 

Men votes_ 12 

Women votes_ 3 


The statement appears to be signed by three judges of election. The ballot 
box is sealed and tied with a rope. 

There is also a package of ballots, outside of the ballot box, folded, and tied 
with a rope. There is not any wrapping around the package except the rope. 
The ballots are not covered. They appear to be folded with the face of the 
ballot inside. On the back of one of these ballots, which is on the outside 
of the package, are the figures “ 6-16.” There appears to be some names 
written on the back of the ballots as judges of election. 

Mr. Asay. Mr. Ayers, that applies only to the one ballot that is now in 
sight; doesn’t it? 

M. Ayers. I think my description covers that—written on the back of the 
ballots that are on the outside of the package. 

The poll book recites, on the outside cover, “ sixth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward 


Number of men votes_ 244 

Number of women votes_ 110 

Total- 354 


With the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, apparently signed by 
all of the judges and clerks, and the poll book appears to contain the names 
and addresses of 354 persons. You may proceed to open the ballots and count 
them as you have in the previous precincts. 

The following proceedings were had at the hour of 9.45 a. m., April 29, 1921, 
there being present Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant; and Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the con- 
testee. 

FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the tabulated statement of the recount 
of the votes in the fifth precinct of the sixteenth ward is as follows: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_131 

Women_ 75 


Total_206 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 80 


Total_ 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 

Women_ 

Total_ 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 

Women-.- 

Total_ 

Total number of votes cast: 

Men_ 

Women- 


85 

4 

3 

7 

6 

1 



Grand total 


305 
































54 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Twenty women’s ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either 
party, to be sealed in envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS, a witness called on behalf of the contestant, was 
examined in chief by Mr. Ayers and testified as follows: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, have you made a careful and critical examination with the 
magnifying glass of the markings on the 20 challenged ballots?—A. I have. 

Q. Have you assembled those into groups?—A. I have. 

Q. How many groups?—A. Two. 

Q. How are they labeled?—A. By a piece of paper pinned to each group, on 
which is marked, on one, “ No. 1,” and on the other one, “ No. 2,” besides other 
notes of mine that are marked on that piece of paper. 

Mr. Ayers. It is stipulated between the attorneys in this contest that these 
ballots may be further designated by numbering them by putting a small num¬ 
ber at the extreme upper right-hand corner of each ballot. Commencing with 
Group No. 1, the ballots are numbered from 1 to 16, inclusive, and Group No. 
2 is numbered in the same way from 1 to 4, inclusive. 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, I will ask you if the 16 ballots in Group No. 1 have 
marks in the square in front of the name of Stanley H. Kunz?—A. They have. 

Q. Did you find any two or more of those marks made by one and the same 
hand?—A. I did. 

Q. How many .of them?—A. Sixteen. 

By Mr. Asay: 

Q. That is all of Group No. 1?—A. All of them in Group No. 1 before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

By Mr. Ayers: 

Q. Now, disregarding the marks in front of Stanley H. Kunz, as you have 
just described, how many, if any, of these ballots are voted for Parillo? 

Mr. Asay. I object to that on the ground that the gentleman is not an expert 
vote counter. 

Mr. Ayers. Well, I can make it more specific, of course. 

Mr. Asay. I don’t want his judgment on that. It shows for itself. 

Mr. Ayers. All right, I will let him describe them. 

Q. Will you describe the markings on the ballots in this group? Now, you 
can commence with No. 1 and go through.—A. Do you want it in detail on 
every one? 

Q. Yes; commencing with No. 1 and going through.—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group 
No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top and a cross in every 
square in the Republican column. 

By Mr. Asay : 

Q. That is, every square before the name of every candidate in the Republi¬ 
can column?—A. Before each and every candidate in the Republican column. 
There is also a cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, 
Francis X. Busch, and Michael L. Igoe. In my opinion, the cross in the Re¬ 
publican Party circle at the top of the ballot and each of the crosses in the 
Republican column was made by one and the same hand, and that each of the 
crosses mentioned in the Democratic column were made by one and the same 
hand, and a different hand than the hand that made the crosses in the Re¬ 
publican column and in the Republican circle. 

Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at 
the top and a cross before every name of candidates in the Republican column 
and in my opinion all of these crosses Were made by one and the same hand. 
There is a cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz and Joseph Petlak in 
the Democratic column, and in my opinion those two crosses were made by one 
and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made the crosses in 
the Republican column and in the Republican circle. 

Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top and a cross in front of the names of every candidate in the Republican 
column, and in my opinion all of these crosses were made by one and the 
same hand. There is a cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph 
Petlak, and Francis X. Busch, in the Democratic column, and in my opinion 
these three crosses were made by one and the same hand and a different hand 
than the hand that made the crosses in front of the candidates in the Republi¬ 
can column and in the Republican Party circle. 


FARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


55 


In my opinion each and every cross at the top of all of these 1G ballots was 
made by a different and distinct hand, and in my opinion the crosses in the 
Democratic column on each of the ballots, 1, 2, and 3, to which I have testified, 
was made by one and the same hand throughout the three ballots, and it being a 
different hand than the hand that made any of the other crosses on either of the 
three ballots testified to. 

Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top, and it has three crosses in the Democrat column, one before tiie name Stan¬ 
ley Henry Kunz, one before the name Joseph Petlak, and one before the name 
Francis X. Busch. 

In my opinion each of these crosses in the Democrat column were made by 
one and the same hand and a different hand than the hand that made the cross 
in the Republican Party circle at the top, but by the same hand that made the 
crosses before testified to in the Democrat column of ballots 1, 2, and 3. 

Ballot No. 5 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top, and has four crosses in the Democrat column before candidates named Stan¬ 
ley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, Francis X. Busch, and Michael L. Igoe. 

In my opinion each of these four crosses in the Democratic column were made 
by the same hand and a different hand than the hand that made the cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top, but by the same hand that made the 
crosses testified to in the Democrat column on ballots 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

Ballot No. 6 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top and four crosses in the Democrat column before candidates Stanley Henry 
Kunz, Joseph Petlak, Francis X. Busch and Michael L. Igoe. 

In my opinion each of the crosses in the Democrat column were made by one 
and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand that made the cross 
in the Republican Party circle at the top, but being the same hand that made the 
crosses before testified to in the Democrat column of each of the five previous 
ballots of this group. 

Ballot No. 7 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top, has a cross before the name George R. Campbell and one before the name 
Theopolis Schmid, electors. Each of these three crosses were made with an 
indelible pencil, having a distinct blue color. There are crosses in the square in 
front of the names of Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, Francis X. Busch, and 
Michael L. Igoe, in the Democratic column, and in my opinion each of these four 
crosses were made by one and the same hand and a different hand than the hand 
that made the three crosses, one in the Republican Party circle at the top and the 
other two before Republican electors on this ballot. Also that each of these three 
crosses in the Republican Party circle and before the electors were made by one 
and the same hand. 

It is my opinion that the four crosses in the Democrat column were made by 
the same hand that made the crosses before testified to in the Democrat column 
on each of the six preceding ballots. 

By Mr. Ayers : 

Q. In your opinion, are any of the marks in the Republican ticket on that 
ballot made by the same hand that made any of the marks on any of the ballots 
previously described by you?—A. No, sir; in my opinion, they were not. 

Q. Proceed.—A. Ballot No. 8 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top and a cross in the Democratic column before the names 
Stanley Henry Kunz, Francis X. Busch, and Michael L. Igoe. Each of these 
three crosses in the Democrat column were, in my opinion, made by one and 
the same hand and a different hand—I omitted to state that there was a cross 
in front of the name of Stanley Kuflewski, an elector in the Democratic column, 
which, in my opinion, was made by the same party who made the cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top—and a different hand than those in the 
Republican Party circle at the top and the one before the name Stanley Kuflewski. 
In my opinion, the crosses in the Democrat column, except the one before the 
elector’s name, were made by one and the same hand and by the same hand that 
made the crosses testified to in the Democrat column of each of the seven previous 

ballots. . , 

Ballot No. 9 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top and has three crosses in the Democrat column before candidate names 
Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, and Francis X. Busch. 

In my opinion, these three crosses in the Democrat column were made by one 
and the same hand and a different hand than the hand that made the cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, but by the same hand that 
made the crosses testified to in the Democrat column of the previous eight ballots. 


56 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


Ballot No. 10 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top and has three crosses in the Democrat column before candidates names 
Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, and Francis X. Busch. 

In my opinion, each of these three crosses in the Democrat column were made 
by one and the same hand and a different hand than the hand that made the 
cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, but by the same hand 
that made the crosses previously testified to in the Democrat column of the 
nine previous ballots. 

Q. With the exception of the one mark in front of an elector’s name on ballot 
No. 7?—A. I have covered that in my exception previously testified to. 

Mr. Ayers. Very well. 

The Witness. Ballot No. 11 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top and' three crosses before candidates’ names in the 
Democrat column, one before Stanley Henry Kunz, one before Joseph Petlak, 
and one before Francis X. Busch. 

In my opinion these three crosses in the Democrat column were made by 
the same hand and a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, but by the same hand that 
made the crosses in the Democrat column to which I have testified previously 
in the 10 previous ballots. 

Ballot No. 12 of group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top and four crosses in the Democrat column, one before each candidate, Stanley 
Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, Francis X. Busch, and Michael L. Igoe. 

In my opinion each of these four crosses in the Democrat column were made 
by one and the same person, that being a different person than the person 
Mho made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, it 
being the same person m t 1io made the crosses previously testified to in the 
Democrat column of each of the 11 previous ballots. 

Ballot No. 13 of group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at 
the top and four crosses in the Democrat column before candidates’ names, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, Francis X. Busch, and Michael L. Igoe. 

In my opinion each of these four crosses in the Democrat column Mere made 
by one and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made the 
cross in the Republican Party circle in the top of the ballot, but by the same 
hand that made the crosses in the Democrat column previously testified to on 
the 12 preceding ballots. 

Ballot No. 14 of grouf> No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at 
the top and three crosses in the Democrat column, one before Stanley Henry 
Kunz, one before Joseph Petlak, and one before Francis X. Busch. 

In my opinion each of the three crosses in the Democrat column were made 
by one and the same hand and a different hand than the hand that made the 
cross in the Republican Party circle at the top, but by the same hand that made 
the crosses in the Democrat column of the 13 ballots previously testified to. 

Ballot No. 15 in group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at 
the top and four crosses before candidates names in the Democrat column, one 
before Stanley Henry Kunz, one before Joseph Petlak, one before Francis X. 
Busch, and one before Michael L. Igoe. 

In my opinion each of these four crosses in the Democrat column M r ere made 
by a different hand than the hand that made the crosses in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of this ballot, but by the same hand that made the crosses 
previously testified to in the Democrat column of the 14 previous ballots. 

Ballot No. 16 in Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at 
the top of the ballot and three crosses in the Democrat column before candidates 
names, Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, and Francis X. Busch. 

In my opinion each of these three crosses in the Democrat column were 
made by one and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand that 
made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, but the 
same hand that made the crosses previously testified to in the Democrat column 
of the 15 previous ballots. I have finished with this group. 

Mr. Ayers. Contestant, Parrillo, challenges the 16 ballots in Group No. 1 
above described by Mr. Rounds, on the ground that they were voted for Parrillo 
as shown by Mr. Rounds’s description, by the legal voters; that after the polls 
closed and the ballots box was opened in the polling place during the period of 
time that the ballots were being counted, these 16 ballots were unlawfully and 
wrongfully marked for contestee and other candidates as testified to by Mr. 
Rounds, and that they were also wrongfully counted for contestee when they 


PAERILLO VS. KUNZ. 


57 


should have been counted for contestant. We contend that these ballots should 
now be counted for contestant, Parillo. 

Mr. Asay. Mr. Ayres, would it be all right for us to stipulate so as to save a 
lot of time, that my objection to the expert, his testimony—not my objection to 
the expert, but my objection to the receiving of the testimony of the expert— 
that specific objections need not be made each time? I will state the objection 
right now if you want it so that you get it? 

Mr. Ayers. All right. 

Mr. Asay\ It is stipulated, then, that it will not be necessary hereafter for 
contestee to make an objection at the close of the recount of any precinct, to 
make an objection to the reception of the testimony of Mr. Rounds, but that it 
will be understood that the objection is continuous and applies to each one of 
the precincts and to all the testimony of Mr. Rounds, upon the ground, first, 
that Mr. Rounds has not qualified as an expert; second, that the foundation 
for the testimony lias not been properly laid; third, that there are no allegations 
in the notice of the. contestant served upon contestee of this election contest, 
nor upon the petition therein filed, that would sustain proof such as has been 
here offered and presented by Mr. Rounds. 

Now, I want to keep those general objections to every one of them. That is 
understood, isn’t it, Mr. Ayers? 

Mr. Ayers. I will agree to the above, and add rliat those objections may apply 
not only to Mr. Rounds but to any other expert witness who may hereafter be 
called. 

Mr. Asay. Called by either party? 

Mr. Ayers. No. If you call any expert, I will put in my objections. 


By Mr. Ayers : 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, I will ask you, in reference to group No. 2, to describe 
the markings on those ballots?—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2 has a cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top, and has a cross in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz and one in front of the name Joseph Petlak. In my opin¬ 
ion the cross in the Repubilcan Party circle at the top and the cross before the 
name Joseph Petlak was made by one and the same person, but that the cross 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different person. 

Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top, has a cross in front of one of the electors of the Democratic Party Stanley 
Kuflewski—a cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and a cross in 
front of the name Joseph Petlak. 

In my opinion, the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top and the 
cross before the elector and the one before the name Joseph Petlak was made 
by one and the same hand, but that the cross before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz was made by a different hand, but by the same hand that made the cross 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 1, and that the cross 
in the Republican Party circle at the top was made by a different person than 
the person who made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of 

^Ballot No 3 of group No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top, and a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and a cross before the 
name Joseph Petlak, which cross has, apparently by the sahie pencil that made 
Die cross, been canceled by drawing a line both to the right and left several 

name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by 
a different hand than the hand that made the cross m the Republican Paity 
circle at the top of this ballot, but by the same hand that made the cross in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on the two previous ballots, and that the 
cross in the Republican party circle at the top of this ballot was made b> a dif¬ 
ferent hand than either of the hands that made the crosses in the party circ s 

at Ballot Ncf 4of°Group No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 

TrontTf £? rfamfSyHenr^Kunz on each of the three previous 
ballots of this group. 


58 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Mr. Ayers. Contestant challenges the four ballots in Group No. 2 above 
described by Mr. Rounds, on the ground that the ballots were cast by the lawful 
voters for Parillo for Congress, but were unlawfully marked for Kunz after 
the polls closed and also unlawfuly counted for him. We contend that these 
ballots should be counted for Parillo. 

The ballots in both groups will be sealed in envelopes and placed in the ballot 
box and resealed with the uncontested ballots, as has been done heretofore. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, your testimony given in this precinct and in the others, gen¬ 
erally speaking, where you seek to identify or differentiate in regard to crosses, 
is founded upon an examination through the magnifying glass, but which you 
sometimes call a microscope glass; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that the sole effort by which you determine your testimony—or, rather, 
upon which you form your opinion—that is, what you see through the glass?— 
A. Or the naked eye; yes, sir. 

Q. Which would be the more reliable, the naked eye or the glass?—A. Well, 
for some purposes one and for some purposes the other. 

Q. Give me an instance where the naked eye would be more reliable than the 
magnifying glass.—A. Taking a group of crosses and examining them all at one 

time. 

Q. That is, running through a group like this last one—Group 1 of this pre¬ 
cinct containing 16 ballots—you think you could examine it with the naked eye 
and discover the similarity of the crosses before the name Kunz by running 
with your naked eye over the 16 ballots rather than by taking your glass and 
comparing each one of the 16 by means of the glass?—A. I do; yes, sir. 

Q. And you think that would be more accurate than the microscope?—A. For 
certain things it would be more accurate. 

Q. I asked you for the identity. Could you tell more reliably—in other words, 
would your opinion be stronger because of the evidence of your naked eye by 
running over the 16 ballots without the use of the microscope, or would it be 
strengthened by use of the microscope?—A. It would be strengthened by the 
use of the microscope; yes, sir. 

Q. Well, then, the microscope is really, from your standpoint, the better evi¬ 
dence, isn’t it?—A. Not necessarily the better evidence. It is corroborating 
evidence. 

Q. Then your entire testimony, to state it in your own way, is based upon 
your examination with the naked eye and with the microscope; is that cor¬ 
rect?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From which inspection, either by the naked eye or by the microscope, it 
appears to you that the crosses in question which you claim are made by the 
same person throughout the entire 20 ballots in question here, from which it 
appears to you they were made by one and the same person; that is correct, 
isn’t it?—A. It is. 

Q. And that is because of several elements, is it not, namely, that in your 
opinion the crosses are similar in their shape?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the heft, if I may use that word, of the strokes?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the angle at which the strokes cross, or attempt to cross; is that cor¬ 
rect?—A. Yes, sir. • « 

Q. Is there any other element that goes into it in your judgment?—A. Yes, 
sir. * 

Q. I am speaking.of the 16 ballots or the 20 ballots. What is the other ele¬ 
ment—I want to be fair; what is the other element?—A. The character of the 
pencil or the implement used in making the crosses. 

Q. By the character what do you mean?—A. Well, as to whether it is a sharp, 
hard lead pencil or a soft lead pencil or an indelible pencil. 

Q. In other words, the material of the pencil?—A. The material of the 
pencil; yes. 

Q. Did you find in all the 20 crosses made before the name Stanley H. 
Kunz in these 20 ballots that they were all made by the same pencil?—A. In 
my opinion they are. Wait a minute—in the 20? 

Q. Yes.—A. Not in the 20. In the group of 16 they were and in the group 
of 4 they were. 

Q. And do you think that the 4 in Group No. 2 were made by a different 
pencil than those 16 in Group No. 1—A. I think so. 

Q. You have examined it closely, have you not?—A. I have, yes, sir; and it 
is my opinion that they were. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


59 


Q. Now, ia there any other element that you take into consideration than 
vfhat I have tried to fairly outline in forming your judgment? I am speaking 
of element from a scientific standpoint, not whether they are Democratic or 
Republican.—A. Well, I don’t remember whether you stated the individual 
characteristic that entered into the shape of the- « 

Q. Well, then it would be the shape of the cross?—A. Yes; and the nervous 
tremor. 

Q. All right. Have you examined the 20 crosses in question to discover what 
the nerve tremor was?—A. I have, yes, sir. 

Q. And you have done that carefully with each cross?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you say that you discovered evidence of the same nerve tremor in 
those same crosses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How is that disclosed, Mr. Rounds?—A. Wait a minute. You have gone 
back to the use of 20 again? 

Q. Well, say the 16 in one case and the 4 in the other case?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, then, how is that nerve tremor disclosed that you speak of—by the 
line being wavy or straight?—A. Yes; and indicating as to whether it was 
thrown off with a free-hand movement, or whether it was drawn. 

Q. In other words, if you find a line drawn straight without any quiver or 
shake in it, and you find another line that has a little curve in it, you consider 
that the nerve tremor do you not, the effect of the nerve tremor, that is the 
language you are using?—A. Usually so; yes, sir. 

Q. And that is what you are speaking about?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you turn back to that ballot in No. 2 there where—there it is?—A. 
No. 3. 

Q. In No. 3. You did not testify as I recall it as to whether or not the crosses 
on ballot No. 3 in Group No. 2 now under consideration w T hether those two 
crosses, the one, namely, before the name Stanley Kunz, and the one before the 
name Joseph Petlak, which you have testified was erased or attempted to be 
erased, were made by the same person or not?—A. Is that the question? 

Q. Yes.—A. In my opinion they were not. 

Q. In your opinion they were not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the cross before the name Joseph Petlak on said third numbered 
ballot, ballot No. 3, was that cross made by the same person who marked the 
Republican ballot?—A. In my opinion it was. 

Q. Now, I call your attention to ballot No. 2, I think it is in Group No. 1—is 
that No. 2?—A. That is No. 2. 

Q. I call your attention to the so-called cross put before Stanley Kunz?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That cross is or was attempted to be erased, was it not?—A. It was. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee admits that the cross before the 
name Stanley Kunz was erased, or attempted to be erased. 

Q. I call your attention now to ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1. You testified 
that there were certain crosses—you did not make any statement in reference 
to what appears in the square, the name Michael L. Igoe, is that right?— 
A. That is right. 

Q. What does appear there—a half of a cross?—A. A half of a cross and 
then just at the corner of the square a pencil was touched again to the paper. 

Q. As though a cross was to be attempted, is that it?—A. Yes, sir. And 
besides that there is a scratch going the other way as though the cross was 
actually tried, but the pencil did not mark. 

Q. In other words, is it not, in your opinion, very probable that there was 
a cross there, but that the second intersecting line of the attempted cross 
failed to be recorded by reason of the lead giving out?—A. Some such reason; 
yes, sir. 

Some such reason?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And was this attempted cross, in your opinion, before the name Michael 
L. Igoe, made by the same hand that made the cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz?—A. It was. 

Q. I call your attention to ballot number seven of Group No. 1, in which 
you testified that the cross in the Republican circle and the cross before two 
Republican electors, namely, Campbell and Schmid, in which you testified that 
those crosses were made by an indelible pencil. Now, the cross in the circle 
before the Republican is a well-defined, heavy cross, isn’t it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the cross before Campbell is not so heavy by 75 per cent; is it?—• 
A. Approximately that; yes, sir. 



60 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. And that is equally so, the same fading of the cross or lack of definiteness 
in the cross that appears before the name Schmid, is that correct?—A. That 
is true. 

Q. Have you examined those two elector crosses to see whether or not they 
were attempted to be erased after made?—A. I did. 

Q. And what is your opinion about that?—A. In my opinion there has not 
been any attempt at erasure there. 

Q. Would that be accounted for—that difference in the shade of the cross— 
by reason of the indellible pencil wearing out—the point wearing out at that 
time?—A. It might have been—or breaking. 

Q. Or breaking?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is all on that. 

Mr. Asay. That will be all for this group, Mr. Ayers, except, of course, it is 
understood that in all these instances we insist the ballots should be counted 
as marked. If they are marked Parrillo, they should be counted for Parrillo; 
and if they are marked for the other man, they should be counted for him— 
for Kunz. 

Q. There seems to be a little misunderstanding, Mr. Rounds, and I will ask 
you the direct question so as to clear the atmosphere. Do you maintain, in 
your opinion, that the 16 crosses before the name Stanley Kunz is the 16 
ballots comprising Group No. 1 were made by one and the same person?— 
A. I do. 

Q. And do you contend that the four crosses made before the name of Stanley 
H. Kunz in Group No. 2 were made by one and the same person?—A. I do. 

Q. But do you contend that the 20 crosses, taken as an entirety, were made 
by one and the same person?—A. I do not. 

Q. You contend that the four crosses in Group No. 2 were made by a different 
person than the person who made the 16 crosses in Group No. 1?—A. Yes, sir. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 p. m., same 
day, April 29, 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, April 29, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. 
Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. In the absence of Mr. Ayers, I will dictate the usual stipulation 
into the record— 

It is stipulated between the parties by their attorneys that the ballot box 
marked as of the seventh precinct of the sixteenth ward shows on the outside 


the following: 

Number of candidate ballots: 

Democratic: 

Men_ 51 

Women_ 37 

Republican: 

Men_ 50 

Women’s_ 32 

Socialist: 

Men’s_ 4 

Women’s_*_ 1 


Apparently bearing the signatures of three judges who are apparently judges 
of election in said precinct. The flaps on the ballot bax are tightly sealed, and 
the ballot box itself is inclosed by a rope going both ways around said box, and 
is sealed with sealing wax on the knots thereof. 

The poll book presented is apparently from the seventh precinct of the six¬ 
teenth ward and contains the following notation on the outside thereof in the 
blank provided therefor: 


Number of men voters_225 

Number of women voters_129 

Total_354 













PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


61 


And the certificate is apparently signed by all the judges and clerks of elec¬ 
tion in said precinct, certifying that the election in the seventh precinct of the 
sixteenth ward was held at the house of Frank Kunkel, 1819 North Hermitage 
Avenue, and the poll book shows the names of 354 persons who have apparently 
voted and have been checked as such by the clerks and judges of said election 
in said precinct. You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots. 

(Whereupon the count here poceeded.) 

At the hour of 4 o’clock p. m., same day, Apil 29. 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, and Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the tabulated statement of the recount of 
the votes in the sixth precinct of the sixteenth ward is as follows: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ j_ 135 

Women_ 67 


Total_ 202 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 85 

Women_ 34 


Total_ 119 


Blank votes: 

Men_ D 

Women_ 2 


Total_ 11 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 14 

Women_ 3 


Total___ 17 


Total number of votes cast: 

Men_ 243 

Women_ 106 


Grand total- 349 

SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the recbrd show that the tabulated statement of the recount 
of the votes in the seventh precinct of the sixteenth ward is as follows: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men--- 

Women_ 92 


Total_ 241 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men__ 61 

Women_ 92 


Total_ 93 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 

Women_. 


10 


Total 


CO TtH 
















































62 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 


Men_ 5 

Women_None. 

Total_ 5 

Total number of votes cast: 

Men_ 221 

Women_ 128 

Grand total_ 349 


Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m. 
Monday, May 2, 1921. 

May 2, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m. May 2, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 'i 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay and Mr. Wallace Streeter, on 
behalf of the contestee. 

EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the box contained the ballots voted at 
the election of Tuesday, November 2, 1920, in the eighth precinct of the sixteenth 
war has no marks in the blanks before the words “ Democratic : Men’s, Women’s. 
Republican: Men’s, Women’s. Socialist: Men’s, Women.” But to the right of 
the word “ Democratic ” and beyond the line provided for in the blank are the 
words and figures, “ total, 201,” opposite the word “ men’s,” under the word 
“ Democratic.” And the words, “ total, women’s, 82.” On the box appears the 
signatures of three persons who signed the blanks provided for the judges of 
election to sign. The box apparently is sealed up, both with mucilage and with 
sealing wax, and is tied around two ways with a rope with sealing wax. 

The poll book of the eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward shows in the blank 


provided: 

Number of men voters_ 202 

Number of women voters_ 81 


Total__ 283 


And the certificate on the inside of the cover of the poll book is apparently 
signed by the three judges of election and two clerks of election, and certifies 
that the election was held at the house of Richard Hagge, 1753 North Win¬ 
chester Avenue, and contains, written in ink, the names of 283 persons as having 
voted at that election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, as you have done 
in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. m. same day, May 2, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the box contained ballots voted at the 
election of Tuesday, November 2, 1920, in the ninth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward, states, on the face: 


Men’s vote_261 

Women’s vote_105 


The statement is signed by the three judges. The ballot box appears to be 
very full and the flaps are not long enough to reach down to the wax of the 
bottom of the box. It is wrapped with rope going around it two ways and 
the rope is doubled both ways and tied on the bottom with sealing wax on 
the knot. 

The poll book of the ninth precinct of the sixteenth ward states on the cove ' 


as follows: • , 

Number of men voters_261 

Number of women voters_105 


Total 


364 






















PAEEILLO VS. KUNZ. 


63 


'lho poll book contains tlio usual certificate on the inside of the cover signed 
all the three judges anti clerks. There appears to be 364 names entered in 
the poll book. 

^ on may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots in this precinct 
as you have in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour ol 12 o’clock p. m. same day, May 2, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had, the same parties being present : 

EIGHTH PBECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated that the following figures 
are made by the election commissioners in their recount of the eighth precinct 
of the sixteenth ward: 


Votes cast for Kunz: 

Men- 100 

Women_ 3 g 


Total--136 


Votes cast for Parillo: 

Men___ 77 

Women_ 2 _ 40 


Total_ 117 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 6 

Women_ 5 


Total_ 11 


Votes cast for Stockbridge: 

Men_'_:-b_ 18 

Women_ 1 


Total 


19 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men_201 

Women_ 82 

Total_1-283 


Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 1.30 o’clock p. m. same day, 
May 2, 1921. 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., May 2, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayres, 
on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay and Mr. Wallace Streeter, on 
behalf of the contestee. 

TENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayres. It is stipulated that the ballot box in the tenth precinct of the 
sixteenth ward shows on its face the number of votes as follows: 


Democratic: 

Men_ 125 

Women_ 96 

Republican: 

Men_ 121 

Women_ 7 

Socialist: 

Men_ 9 

Women_ 4 

96674—22-5 




































64 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


The statement is signed by the three judges. The ballot box is sealed. 
There are also in this precinct two packages wrapped with heavy brown 
paper and tied with rope, signed on the outside with the judges’ signatures. 

The poll book in the tenth precinct of the sixteenth ward shows the number 
of votes as follows: 


Number of men voters_•- 248 

Number of women voters___ 133 

Total_381 


The usual certificate appears on the inside of the cover signed by all the 
judges and clerks. The poll list of the voters, as entered in the poll book, 
appears to be 381. 

You will proceed to open and count the ballots in this precinct as you have 
done in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 3 o’clock p. m. same day, May 2, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had, the. same parties being present: 

NINTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated that the following figures 
are made by the election commissioners in their recount of the ninth precinct of 


the sixteenth ward: 

Votes cast for Kunz: 

Mein_ 144 

Women_1 57 

Total_ 201 

Votes cast for Parrillo: 

Men_ 66 

Women_ 25 

Total_ 91 

Blank votes: 

Men- 19 

Women_ 12 

Total_ 31 

Votes cast for Stockbridge: 

Men __ 32 

Women- 10 

Total_ 42 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men-„- 261 

Women_ 104 

Grand total_ 365 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. m. the fol¬ 
lowing day, May 3, 1921. 

May 3, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 3, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before. 

eleventh precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

Mr. Ayers. It is stipulated that the ballot box of the eleventh precinct of 
the sixteenth ward, which is about to be opened and counted, shows upon its 
face the vote as follows: 


































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


65 


Democratic: 


Men_ 95 

Women_ 43 

Republican: 

Men_ 61 

Women_ 24 

Socialist: 

Men_ w _ 17 

W omen_ 4 


The statement is signed by three judges. The ballot box is sealed. 

The poll book of the eleventh precinct of the sixteenth ward recites on its face: 


Number of men voters_ 173 

Number of women voters_ 73 


Total_ 246 

The certificate on the inside of the cover is not filled out, but is signed by all 
the judges and clerks. 

The number of names and addresses in the poll book appear to be 246. 

You may proceed to open the ballot boxe and count the ballots, as you have 
done in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

TENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 


Whereupon, at the hour of 12 o’clock noon, same day, May 3. 1921,. the fol¬ 
lowing proceedings were had, the same counsel being present, to wit: Mr. Frank 
D. Ayres, on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the 

contestee. , , 

Mr. Ayers. Ret the record show that it is stipulated and agreed that the fol¬ 
lowing result of the recount of the ballots by the board of election commissioners 
in the tenth precinct of the sixteenth ward may be read into the record, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Ballots cast for Kunz: 

Men _ lio 

Women.::: _ 108 

Total_ 281 

Ballots cast for Parrillo: 

Men_ rjj 

Women----- 

m i 69 

Total- 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 

and being further examined in chief by Mr. Ayers, testified as follows. 

Q Mr. Rounds, you have examined the three ballots here, in the tenth pie- 

C1 q! ’ You 1 have* made 1 a careful and critical examination with the magnifying 

fflass of these three ballots, have you.' 1 A. I haie. 

Q Will you describe those three ballots, so that we may have them in 
record, numbering them on the right-hand corner, _by agr^ment Nos 1 2, and 
3 on the right-hand corner of each ballot, No. 1, ^o. 2, and ao. d ... 

Ballot No. l is a woman’s ballot. There are crosses in the squares in front 

of everv name in the Republican column. . 

O No cross in the party circles?—A. No cross in the party circles at the 
tor?’ There is a cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and a cross 
in front of the name Joseph Petlak. These two crosses in front of the names 
Kunz and Petlak in my opinion, were made by a different hand and with a 
different pencil than the hand and the pencil that made the other crosses on 

this ballot. 

O Now describe *baRot No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top, and the only other crosses are in the Democrat column, 
", f ivimps Stanley Henry Kunz, JovSeph Petlak, and Joseph A. 

Trandel. In my opinion the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top, and 
























66 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


the two crosses, one each in front of Petlak and Trandel, were made by the 
same hand. The cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Knnz, in my opinion, 
was made by a different hand. Ballot No. 3 is a man’s ballot, and has a cross 
in the Republican Party circle at the top, and has two crosses in the squares 
in front of candidates’ names in the Democrat column, one before the name 
S.tanley Henry Kunz, and the other before the name Joseph Petlak. In my 
opinion the cross before the name Joseph Petlak was made by the same hand 
that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top, but that the 
cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different hand 
and was made by the same hand and with the same pencil that made the 
cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 2. 

Mr. Ayeks. Contestant challenges these three ballots and objects to their 
being counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and claims that ballot No. 1 
should be counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo; that ballot No. 2 should not 
be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, the contestee, but should be counted for 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; that ballot No. 3 should be counted for the con¬ 
testant, Dan Parrillo. and not counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, the opinion you have with reference to these three ballots, and 
your opinion with reference to each one of these three ballots, is founded upon 
the examination that you have made of these ballots by use of the magnifying 
glass, as you have testified in your first statement; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it is purely an opinion, is it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that the three ballots in question will be 
sealed in a separate envelope and the envelope will afterwards be sealed up 
in the ballot box of this precinct and preserved so that the same may be exam¬ 
ined by the congressional committee in case they so desire. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, insists 
that the ballots should be counted as marked, for contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, and not for the contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Ayers : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4.—A. Ballot No. 4 is a woman’s ballot, having a 
cross in the Republican Party circle at the top and a cross in the square in 
front of the name of Stanley Henry Kunz and a cross in the square in front 
of the name, Joseph Petlak. There is an apparent erasure of marks in the 
square in front of Edward Walz, in the Republican column, and a cross in 
the square in front of the name of Dan Parrillo, which has also been erased. 
There is visible, distinctly, one of the marks in the cross before Dan Parrillo, 
and a very slight suggestion of the other mark in the cross. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, objects to the 
counting of this ballot for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and insists that it 
should be counted for the contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, insists 
that this ballot should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, in ac¬ 
cordance with the evident intent of the voter, and that it should not be counted 
for contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, in reference to this last ballot, No. 4, will you look at the 
three crosses in question and tell me if you have an opinion as to whether or 
not the crosses before Kunz and Petlak are made by the same hand? Have 
you an opinion about that? And also how about the cross in the Republican 
circle? I am only asking you have you an opinion about it?—A. I have an 
opinion. 

Q. Well, now, can you tell us, in your opinion, who the various crosses were 
made by, whether they were made by the same person or a different person? 
If so, specify. I call your attention to another cross in the Democratic candi¬ 
dates’ list, before the name of James Hamilton Lewis, and take into considera¬ 
tion and describe that cross, also in reference to its origin, if you can. How 
were they made? Now, I want an answer to that. I am trying to find out, have 
you an opinion as to whether the cross before the name Stanley Kunz was 
made by the same hand that made the other crosses on this ballot or not? 
That is what I am asking you now.—A. I have an opinion. 

Q. And what is that opinion, Mr. Rounds?—A. My opinion is that the cross 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by the same hand that 
mado the other crosses on the ballot. 


PARKILLO VS. KUNZ. 


67 


Q. Can you form an opinion as to whether the. cross before the name Dan 
Parrillo was made by the same hand that made the other crosses on this ballot, 
or is it too dark?—A. I think it was. 

Q. Then all the crosses on the ballot, in your opinion, were made by the 
same hand?—A. I think they were; that is my opinion. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that this ballot also will be sealed up in an 
envelope, containing the other three ballots in question, and placed in the ballot 
box, which will also be sealed up, to await the further action, or any action, 
by the congressional committee in reference thereto. 

Mr. Asay. Let. the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Ivunz, 
claims that the fourth ballot also should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo, objecting and claiming that the same should be 
a blank. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock, May 4, 1921.) 

May 4, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o'clock a. m., May 4, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf 
(representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

TWELFTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed that the 
ballot box in the twelfth precinct of the sixteenth wards shows that the flaps 
are not sealed nor gummed, and that no seal is on the box, but that the same 
is fastened together by a rope two ways around the entire box, tied but not 
sealed, and that the outside of the box, in the proper blanks, are filled as 
follows: 

“ Twelfth precinct of the sixteenth ward.” 

Nothing before the words “ Democrat, men’s ballots.” 

Nothing before the words “ Democrat, women’s ballots.” 

Nothing before the words “ Republican men’s ballots.” 

Nothing before the words “ Republican, women’s ballots.” 

After the word “ Socialist ” is: 


Men_ 11 

Women__ 13 


Outside of the box also appears the signatures of three persons, two of the 
signatures in the blanks provided for judges of election and the three signatures 
a little below that. 

The poll book of the twelfth precinct of the sixteenth ward shows, on the 
outside cover thereof: 


Number of men voters_ 199 

Number of women voters_ 170 

Total_:_ 169 


It apparently ought to be 369, but it says 169. 

On the inside of the cover of the poll book the certificate shows that it is 
the poll book of the twelfth precinct of the sixteenth ward, and that the elec¬ 
tion was held at the house of Edward S. Sclirain, No. 1644 West North Avenue, 
and the certificate is signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of the clerks of election, and the poll list shows the names of 269 
persons as having voted in said precinct at said election. 

You may proceed to open the poll book and count the ballots as you have 
in the previous precincts. 

At the hour of 10.45 o’clock a. m., same day, May 4, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the following parties being present: Mr. Alexander Wolf 
(representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
and Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 








68 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


ELEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the con¬ 
testant and, being examined in chief by Mr. Wolf, testified as follows: 

Q. What is your name, please?—A. Howard A. Rounds. 

Q. Are you the same Mr. Rounds, the handwriting expert, who has hereto¬ 
fore testified in this contest?—A. I am. 

Q. Have you made a careful and critical examination, with the magnifying 
glass, of certain ballots in the eleventh precinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. I 
have. 

Q. Have you arranged them in groups?—A. I have. 

Q. How many groups have you, Mr. Rounds?—A. Two groups. 

Q. How manji ballots are there in the first group?—A. Five. 

Q. And how many ballots are there in the second group?—A. Five. 

Q. State whether they are men’s or women’s ballots?—A. Five are men’s bal¬ 
lots and five are women’s ballots. 

Q. Which are the five women’s ballots, which group?—A. Group No. 1. 

Q. Group No. 1 consists of five women’s ballots?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Group No. 2 consists of five men’s ballots, is that correct?—A. Yes. 
sir. 

Q. Will you describe the ballots contained in Group No. 1, and state how 
you have marked the group?—A. Group No. 1 is marked by pinning a piece of 
paper to the group, and on this piece of paper is marked “ No. 1,” besides other 
things of mine. 

Q. How about the ballots themselves, have you marked them?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State how you have marked the ballots themselves?—A. The ballots 
themselves are numbered in the extreme upper right hand corner. 

Q. They are numbered with the numerals, are they?—A. They are numbered 
with the numerals 1 to 5, inclusive. 

Q. Now, then, will you describe the markings on each of these ballots in Group 
No. 1?—A. Ballot No. 1 in Group No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top of the ballot and crosses before the candidate’s name in the Demo¬ 
crat column, Stanley Henry Kunz and Joseph A. Trandel, and, in my opinion, 
the cross in the Republican Party circle was made by a different hand than the 
hand that made the other two crosses in the Democrat column. 

Q. Now describe the markings of ballot No. 2?—A. Ballot No. 2 Inis a cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top and a cross in front of the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, Joseph A. Trandel, and Walter ,T. La Buy in the Democrat column. 
In my opinion, the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top was made by 
a different hand than the hand that made the three crosses in the Democrat 
column. 

Q. Now describe the markings of ballot No. 3?—A. Ballot No-. 3 has a cross 
in the Republican Party circle at the top and a cross in front of the names of 
Frank S. Righeimer and Robert E. Crowe, in the Republican column, and crosses 
before the names J. Hamilton Lewis, Walter W. Williams, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
Joseph Petlak, Francis X. Busch, Walter J. La Buy, and Stanley Kuflewski, in the 
Democrat column. In my opinion, the cross in the Republican Party circle at 
the top was made by the same hand that made the cross before the names Stanley 
Kuflewski, James Hamilton Lewis, and Walter W. Williams. In my opinion, 
the other crosses on this ballot were made by a different hand than the hand that 
made the four crosses above specified. 

Q. Describe the markings on ballot No. 4?—A. Ballot No. 4 has a cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top and crosses before the names Stanley Henry 
Kunz and Joseph Petlak, in the Democrat column. In my opinion, the cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top was made by a different hand than the 
hand that made the two crosses in the Democrat column. 

Q. Describe the markings on ballot No. 5?—A. Ballot No. 5 has a cross in the 
Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot and a cross before the name Stan¬ 
ley Henry Kunz, in the Democrat column. In my opinion, the cross in the 
Socialist Party circle at the top was made by a different hand than the hand 
that made the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion each of the crossed in the party circles at the top of these 
five ballots were made by five different and distinct hands, and in my opinion 
the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and other crosses as mentioned 
on each of the five ballots, were made by one and the same hand. 

My reason for that opinion is. general similarity of the crosses, the uniform 
heft of the pencil stroke throughout the five ballots as compared with the varying 


PARRILLO VS. KTJNZ. 


69 


stroke and varying pencil used in making the crosses in the party circles at the 
top of the ballots. 

Mr. Wolf. It is the contention and insistence of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, 
that all the ballots except the one marked in the Socialist Party circle should 
not he counted for the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz, but should be counted for 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo, and that ballot No. 5 should not he counted for 
contestee, Stanley H. Kunz but should be counted for Stockbridge, the Socialist 
candidate for Congress. 

Q. Now, referring to group No. 2, describe the markings on each of the ballots 
in group No. 2.—A. Group No. 2 consists of five men’s ballots, each one numbered 
in the upper right-hand corner with the numerals 1 to 5, inclusive. 

Q. Describe the markings on ballot No. 1 in group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 1 in 
group No. 2 has a cross in the Socialist column at the top of the ballot, and has 
a cross in front of the name James Hamilton Lewis, Stanley Henry Kunz. Joseph 
Petlak, all in the Democrat column. In my opinion the cross in the Socialist 
Party circle at the top of the ballot and the cross in front of the name James 
Hamilton Lewis were made by one and the same hand, but that the crosses in 
front of the names Stanley Henry Kunz and Joseph Petlak were made by a 
different hand. 

Q. Now, describe the markings on ballot No. 2 in group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 

2 in group No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 

ballot, a cross in front of the name Len Small in the Republican column, a cross 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, Joseph A. Trandel, 
and Walter J. LaBuy in the Democrat column. 

In my opinion, the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot, and the cross in front of the name Len Small were made by one and the 
same hand, but that the cross in front of the names Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph 
Petlak, Joseph A. Trandel, and Walter J. LaBuy were made by a different hand 
than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of 
the ballot. 

Q. Now, describe the markings on ballot No. 3 in Group No. 2.—A. Ballot 

No. 3 in Group No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at 

the top of the ballot, and a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, 
Joseph Petlak, Walter J. LaBuy, and John Kozinski in the Democrat column. 
In my opinion, the cross in the Republican Party circle was made by a different 
hand than the hand that made the crosses in the Democrat column. 

Q. Describe the markings on Ballot No. 4 in Group No. 2?—A. Ballot No. 4 
in Group No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot, has a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, 
Walter J. LaBuy, Joseph Kozinski, and Stanley Kuflewski in the Democrat 
column, and in my opinion the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top 
was made by a different hand than the hand that made any of the crosses 
in the Democrat column. 

Q. Describe the markings on Ballot No. 5 in Group No. 2?—A. Ballot No. 
5 in Group No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot, a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, and Walter 
J. LaBuy in the Democrat column. 

In my opinion the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top was 
made by a different hand than the hand that made any of the crosses in the 
Democrat column, and in my opinion each of the crosses in the party circles 
at the top of these five ballots, was made by a different and distinct hand, but 
that the crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and other crosses through¬ 
out these five ballots were made by one and the same hand. My reasons for 
that opinion are the same as the reasons I have given with respect to Group 
No. 1. 

Mr. Wolf. It is the contention and insistence of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, 
that ballots Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 should not be counted for contestee, Stanley H. 
Kunz, but should, on the contrary he counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo, and 
that ballot No. 1 should be counted for Stockbridge, and not for contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you are basing your opinion from the examination made, as 
you have testified to heretofore in this contest, namely, an examination with 
the magnifying glass, and from the similarity of pencil marks, and possibly 
in some cases, the material of the pencil used?—A. Yes, sir. 


70 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. And from that examination you have formed the opinion that you have 
testified to in regard to same?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that, in accordance with the procedure 
heretofore had, these ballots will be sealed, put in an envelope and not 
counted in this recount for either party, and that the sealed envelope which 
contains these ballots will again be placed in the ballot box, and the ballot 
box sealed up, to be opened in case the congressional committee desired to 
inspect them, or in case contestee desired to offer any proof in regard thereto, 
to be held in the custody of the board of election commissioners until 
called for. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record further show that it is stipulated that one man’s 
ballot in this precinct has a cross, among others, before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, a cross in the Republican Party circle and a cross before the name 
Dan Parrillo, which there was an evident attempt to erase, but not a successful 
one. 

This ballot will be placed in the envelope, sealed up, and not counted for 
either party, and will be held in the custody of the board of election commis¬ 
sioners to await the action of the congressional committee, the same as with 
the other ballots. 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. m., same day, May 4, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had and the following parties being present: Mr. Alexander Wolf 
(representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

ELEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Wolf. It is stipulated and agreed that the recount of the ballots of the 
eleventh precinct of the sixteenth ward, except those ballots sealed up in the 
envelope, show the following vote as having been received by the various can¬ 


didates for Congress in the eighth congressional district: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz : 

Men_109 

Women_ 47 

Total_156 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 43 

Women_ 11 

Total_ 54 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 7 

Women_ 8 

Total!_ 15 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 8 

Women_ 1 

Total_ 9 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_167 

Women_^_ 67 

Grand total_234 


Eleven ballots challenged by contestant and not counted for either party. 

At the hour of 11.20 o’clock a. m., same day, May 4, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had. the following patties being present: Mr. Alexander Wolf 
(representing Mr Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestee, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. Stanley H. Kunz. 






























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


71 


TWELFTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH 


WARD-RESU M ED. 


0LF ;. ft™ record show that it is stipulated by the parties through 

telnth wnrd'^howfthp 5 '?’ ,?"*• the recount of the twelfth precinct of the six- 
cnndiilfiti's- following vote to have been received by the various 


Ballots cast for Mr. Ivunz 

Men_ 

Women_ 


Total_, 


116 

39 


155 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


68 

26 


Total 

Blank votes 

Men_ 

Women 


94 


6 

1 


Total_ y 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men- 9 

V omen- None 


Total 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men- 199 

Women_ 66 


Brand total_ 265 

Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m., 
same day, May 4. 1921. 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m. same day, May 4, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf 
(representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz; 


THIRTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Wolf. It is stipulated and agreed that tthe ballot box purporting to be 
the ballot box of the thirteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward is presented by 
the election commissioners and shows that the two sections are not sealed, and 
that there is a rope going around it in two directions, which is not sealed, but 
tied, and that the face of the ballot box in the proper blanks shows that it is 
the thirteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, and under the head “ Demo¬ 
cratic ” appear “ Men’s ballots, 246,” and under the head of “ Republican ” 
appear “ Woman’s ballots, 150,” bearing the signatures of three persons above 
the title of “ Judge of election.” 

The book purporting to be the poll book of the thirteenth precinct of the six¬ 
teenth ward has, on the outside thereof, in the proper blanks: 


Number of men voters_246 

Number of women voters_150 

Total_396 


On the inside of the cover we find the certificate showing that it is an elec¬ 
tion held in the thirteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, and that it was held 
at the house of Mrs. Rose Gembicke, 1540 West North Avenue, and it is signed 
by tw r o persons in the blanks provided for judges of election and by two persons 
in the blanks provided for clerks of election. Over the list of names entered 






























72 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


in the poll book as of voters having 1 voted at said election there appears to be the 
names of 397 voters, opposite the name of one of which, however, namely, No. 
320 on the poll book, appears the annotation “ Ballot not counted, not regis¬ 
tered.” 

You may now proceed to open the ballot box and count the votes, the same 
as you have in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

May 5, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 5, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf 
(representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

FOURTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed that this is the 
ballot box of the fourteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward. The ballot box has 
a rope around it, one strand running both ways. The flaps are both gummed. 
The rope is removable by untying the knots, the knot being sealed at one end. On 
the face of the box the printed words “ Democratic, Republican, Socialist ” are 
scratched out. On the outside of the box appear the following words and figures : 


Men’s_ 168 

Women’s_ 72 

Total_ 240 


It is apparently signed by three judges. The outside of the bax has on it the 
figures ”14-16.” 

The poll books purports to be the poll book of the fourteenth precinct of the 
sixteenth ward, and shows the usual printed matter on the outside. 

It also shows the following words and figures: 


Number of men voters_:_ 168 

Number of women voters_ 72 

Total_ 240 


It shows the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate stating 
that it was an election held in the fourteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward at 
the house of Ferdinand Hivon, No. 1336 West North Avenue, and is apparently 
signed by the three judges of election and two clerks of election. The poll book 
shows the names and addresses of apparently 240 voters in that precinct. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box therein, as you have done in the pre¬ 
vious precincts. 

At the hour of 11.45 o’clock a. m., same day, May 5, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Presen-t: Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

THIRTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness and, being further examined 
in chief by Mr. Wolf, testified as follows: 

Q. You are the same Howard A. Rounds who has heretofore testified as an 
expert in this contest, are you not?—A. I am. 

Q. Called on behalf of the contestant, is that right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you if you have examined the challenged ballots in the thirteenth 
precinct of the. sixteenth ward with the magnifying glass?—A. I have. 

Q. And have you, from such examination with the magnifying glass, formed 
that opinion as to the crosses on any or all of these challenged ballots?—A. I 
have. 

Q. How many ballots are you prepared to give an opinion on, Mr. Rounds?— 
A. Four ballots. 

Q. Are they all contained in the same group?—A. They are. 










PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


73 


Q. Will you number them from 1 to 4, inclusive?—A. I have. 

Q. You have so numbered them on the upper right-hand corner, have you?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, will you describe the ballots and the markings thereon?—A. Ballot 
No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, has a 
cross in front of the name, Stanley Henry Kunz, and a cross in front of the 
name of Joseph Petlak. 

Q. Now, as to ballot No. 2?—A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top, has a cross in front of the name Stanley H. Kunz, u 
cross in front of the name Joseph Pelak, and a cross in front of the name 
Michael L. Igoe. 

Q. Now, as to ballot No. 3?—A. Ballot No. 3 has a cross in the Socialist Party 
circle at the top, a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, a cross before 
the name Joseph Petlak, and a cross before the name Walter J. LaBuy. 

Q. Now, as to ballot No. 4?—A. Ballot No. 4 does not have any crosses in the 
party circles at the top, but has a cross before the name Charles C. Craig- 

Q. He is the first elector; is that right?—A. Yes; the first elector in the 
Democrat column; a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and a cross 
before the name Joseph Petlak. 

Q. And from your examination of the opinion that you formed in connection 
with the markings on these ballots?—A. My opinion in regard to the crosses 
on these four ballots is as follows: 

That the crosses in the party circles at the top of the first three ballots were 
made by three different and distinct hands; that the crosses before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the first three ballots were made by one and 
the same hand. 

Q. And a different hand from that making the crosses in the party circles, is 
that right?—A. And a different hand than the hand that made the crosses in any 
of the party circles at the top of these three ballots. 

Q. And how about the other ballot, ballot No. 4?—A. The cross before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 4, in my opinion, was made by a dif¬ 
ferent person than the person who made the cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz on the first three ballots, and a different person than the person who 
made the other two crosses on ballot No. 4. 


Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Your opinion in connection with this group of four ballots is founded upon 
an examination made by you with a magnifying glass, is it not, Mr. Rounds?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it necessary, in order for you to form an opinion on those four ballots, 
to use the microscope?—A. No, sir. 

Q. So that your contention is that your opinion could have been formed 
without the use of the microscope, using the magnifying glass only, and that 
the similarity you speak about is patent to the naked eye?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wolf. Contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims that the first two ballots, namely, 
ballot No. 1 and ballot No. 2, should not be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, but should be counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

That ballot No. 3 should be counted for Stockbridge, candidate on the So¬ 
cialist ticket, and not counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

That ballot No. 4 should not be counted for any candidate for Congress, but 


should be considered a blank. 

Contestant therefore contends that the ballots should be counted in the way 

indicating. , „ 

Mr. Asay. Contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims that these ballots should 

be counted as marked, namely, for contestee. Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is now stipulated and agreed between 
the parties hereto that four ballots have been objected to and are not counted 
in this recount for anybody, and are as follows: la, lb, lc, and Id, the aforesaid 
markings appearing in the upper right-hand corner of each ballot. 

A description of the ballots is as follows: 

There is a cross before the name “ Warren G. Harding ’ in ballot marked la, 
a cross before the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz,” and a cross before the name 
“ Joseph Petlak,” and a cross before the name of “ Michael L. Igoe.” This ballot 
was found folded with ballots lb, lc, and Id. 

On ballot identified as Id the markings are as follows: A cross before the 
name “Warren G. Harding,” a cross before the name “Calvin Coolidge, ’ a 
cross before the name “ Stanley Kufiewski ” in the Democrat column, a cross 



74 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


before the name of “ Len Small ” on the Republican ticket, a cross before the 
name “ Stanley Henry Kuiiz ” in the square before his name on the Democrat 
ticket, a cross before the name “ Joseph Petlak ” in the Democrat column, a 
cross before the name “ Walter J. LaBuy ” in the Democrat column, a cross In 
the square before the name “ John Kozicinski.” 

Ballot identified as lc shows a cross in the circle before the word “ Demo¬ 
cratic ” at the top of the column, a cross before the name “ Warren G. Hard¬ 
ing,” a cross before the name “ Len Small ” in the square in the Republican' 
column, a cross in the square before the names of “ Stanley Henry Kunz ” 
and “Joseph Petlak” in the square opposite their respective names in the Demo¬ 
cratic column. This ballot has the word “ spoiled ” written in blue pencil in 
large handwriting on the back of it. 

The ballot identified as Id has a cross in the circle at the top of the column 
before the word “ Socialist,” a cross in the square before the name “ Stanley 
Henry Kunz.” a cross in the square before the name “ Joseph Petlak,” and is 
marked on the back thereof with the word “ spoiled ” in blue pencil. 

These four ballots were folded together with one of the ballots! marked 
“ spoiled ” on the outside, and each of the ballots purport to bear the initials 
of the judges of election in that precinct. 

These four ballots will not be counted for anybody, but will be placed in the 
same envelope with the ballots identified and marked “ 1, 2, 3. and 4,” and will 
be sealed up therein, and the same left in the envelope and that envelope will 
be deposited in the ballot box and will be sealed up therein. 

It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that ballot la should not 
be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, but should be considered a blank. 
That ballot identified and marked lb should not be counted for contestee, Stan¬ 
ley Henry Kunz, but should be considered a blank. 

That ballot identified and marked lc should not be counted for contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, but should be considered a blank. 

That ballot identified and marked Id should not be counted for contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, but should be counted for Stockbridge, tjje Socialist can¬ 
didate for Congress, if counted at all. 

Contestant, Dan Parrillo, further contends that the four ballots should not be 
counted, because they were folded together with one of the ballots marked 
“ spoiled,” on the outside. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is the contention of the contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, that said ballots should, each and every one of them, 
be counted as marked, for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that these ballots will be held subject to 
the action of the committee in Congress, if necessary, and the right of in¬ 
spection and further proof by contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

At the hour of 12 o’clock noon, same day, May 5, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayres) on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on belialf of the con¬ 
testee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

THIRTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by the parties 
hereto, by their respective attorneys, that the recount of the thirteenth precinct 
of the sixteenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the 
various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 


Men_ 190 

Women_ 126 

Total- 322 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


Total 


46 














PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


75 


Blank votes: 

•' Men_ 7 

Women_ 3 


Total_ 10 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 10 

Women_ 1 


Total_ 11 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 245 

Women_ 144 


Grand total_ 389 


Eight ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be 
sealed in envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 1.30 o’clock p. m. same day, 
May 5, 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m. same day, May 5, 1921, pursuant to ad¬ 
journment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William G. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIFTEENTH PEECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will resume, pursuant to adjournment here¬ 
tofore taken. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the parties 
that, in response to a subpoena, the board of election commissioners have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box, of which we find the flaps loose and not sealed. We find 
that there, is a rope going both ways around it, that has had sealing wax on it, 
but has since come off. The box is marked on the outside in the blanks “ 15-1G,” 
and there appears in the blank spaces the following figures and notations, 
“ 15th of the 16th, 987 ballots,” and in the blanks above the printed words 
“ Judge of election ” appear the names of three persons. 

The poll book recites on its fact that it is the fifteenth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward and contains the following words and figures: 


Number of men voters_ 200 

Number of women voters- 129 

Total_ 329 


It contains the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate re¬ 
citing that the election was held in the fifteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, 
on November 2, 1920, at the house of William Szurley, No. 1546 Elston Avenue, 
and is signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of the 
judges of election, and by two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures 
of the clerks of election. An inspection of the poll book shows that there are 
inscribed therein the names of 329 persons as having voted at the said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots as you have in 
the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2.45 o’clock p. m., same day, May 5, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the con- 
test.ee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 






















76 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


FOURTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the fourteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 


candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 80 

Women_ 40 

Total_ 126 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 70 

Women_ 28 

Total_ 98 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 8 

Women_ 4 

Total- 12 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 4 

Women_ 0 

Total_ 4 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men-168 

Women_ 72 

Grand total_240 


At the hour of 3 o’clock p. m., same day, May 5, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Prank D. Ayers), on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the con- 
testee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SIXTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the parties 
that in response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box which is marked the sixteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, 
and in the blanks provided therefor are written the following words and 
figures: 


Number of men voters_ 175 

Number of women voters_ SO 

Republican voters : 

Men_ 26 

Women_ 26 


and signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges 
of election; that on said ballot box the flaps have been and are duly pasted 
and fastened by glue, and that around the said ballot box are two ropes, going 
both ways around it. 

The poll book on the cover thereof, recites that it is the poll book of the 
sixteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, and contains the words and figures: 


Number of men voters_201 

Number of women voters_106 

Total- 307 



































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


77 


It contains the usual certificate on tlie inside of the cover, the certificate re¬ 
citing that the election was held in the sixteenth precinct of the sixteenth 

ward, on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of-, No. 1409 Noble 

►Street, and is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for 
the signatures of the judges of election, and by two persons in the blanks pro¬ 
vided for the signatures of the clerks of election, and an inspection of the poll 
book shows that there are inscribed therein the names of 800 persons as hav¬ 
ing voted at the said election. 

On line 9 of the poll book, apparently, there was an erasure of a name, and 
apparently, another name was written above it. 

\ou may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded). 

At the hour of 3.15 o’clock p. in., same day, May 5, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit.: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the con- 
testee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIFTEENTH PliECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was called as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Wolf, testified as follows: 

Q. You are the same Howard A. Rounds who has heretofore testified in this 
contest, are you?—A. I am. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, have you examined the four hehl-out ballots in the fifteenth 
precinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. Have you made a critical and careful examination of them with the mag¬ 
nifying glass?—A. I have. 

Q. And have you held out, from your standpoint, any of the ballots?—A. I 
have. 

Q. How many?—A. Four. 

Q. And how are they identified by you?—A. By a number in the upper right- 
hand corner from No. 1 to No. 4, inclusive. 

Q. You have numbered them for identification No. 1 to No. 4 inclusive?—A. I 
have. 

Q. Will you describe ballot No. 1, please?—A. Ballot No. 1 has a cross in the 
party circle at the top of the ballot Harding-Coolidge Republican. It has three 
crosses in front of candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which 
is Stanley Henry Kunz, and in my opinion the crosses in the Democrat column 
were made by a different hand than the hand which made the cross in the 
Republican Harding-Coolidge party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Q. Now, describe ballot No. 2 Mr. Rounds.—A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and has a cross before each one 
of the Republican electors, and three crosses in the Democrat column before 
candidates’ names—Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, and Joseph A. Trandel. 

In my opinion the three crosses in the Democrat column were made by a Af¬ 
ferent hand than all the rest of the crosses on the ballot, but by the same hand 
that made the cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 1. 

Q. Now, will you describe ballot No. 3?—A. Ballot No. 3 has a cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and has a cross in front of three 
candidates’ names in the Democrat column, namely, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
Joseph Petlak, and Joseph A. Trandel, and in my opinion these three crosses 
in the Democrat column are made by a different hand than the hand that made 
the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, but by the 
same hand that made the crosses in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on 
each of the preceding ballots. 

■ Q. Now, describe the markings on ballot No. 4.—A. Ballot No. 4 has a cross 
in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and a cross in front of 
each one of the Republican electors, and a cross in front of the name Robert 
E. Crowe, T. J. Crowe, and Walter J. LaBuy, in the body of the ballot, which, 
in my opinion, were made by the same hand as the hand that made the crosses 
in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. Besides these, there 
are three crosses in the Democrat column, namely, one before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, one before the name Joseph Petlak, and one before the name 
Joseph A. Trandel. 



78 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


In my opinion the three crosses last mentioned were made by one and the 
same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made all the other crosses 
on the ballot, but was made by the same hand that made the cross in front of 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the preceding ballots in this group. 

Mr. Wolf. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Are these deductions of yours made from an inspection with the magnifying 
glass, or with the naked eye?—A. Both. 

Q. Both the magnifying glass and the naked eye?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you able to state, from an examination, disregarding the glass ex¬ 
amination, but only having regard to the examination with the naked eye, 
are you able to form an opinion from the examination with the naked eye?— 
A. It can be told just from the naked eye; yes, sir. 

Q. And from the naked-eye examination, and by the use of the magnifying 
glass, you have formed your opinion?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that contestant, Parrillo, contends that 
ballots numbered 2, 3, and 4 should not be counted for the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz, but should be counted for the contestant, Dan Parrillo, and that 
ballot No. 1 should not be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and 
should have no vote whatever for Congressman. 

Mr. Asay. And let the record show on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz contends that the ballots should 
be counted as they are marked, namely, for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record also show that in accordance with the procedure 
heretofore followed these ballots will be sealed up in an envelope, and the 
envelope itself sealed up in the ballot box, and the ballot box to be retained 
in the possession and custody of the board of election commissiners, subject 
to inspection, if needs be, of the congressional committee on elections, or further 
examination on the part of the contestee. 

At the hour of 3.45 o’clock p. m., same day, May 5, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had: 

Present: Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz. 

FIFTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and between 
the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount of the 
fifteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board of election com¬ 
missioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various candi¬ 


dates : 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men--- 136 

Women_- 93 

Total_ 229 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 46 

Women_ 24 

Total_‘_ 70 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 10 

Women_ 7 

Total_ 17 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men- 8 

Women_ 1 

Total- 9 


























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


79 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


200 

125 


Grand total_ 325 , 

Four ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be sealed 
in an envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 0.30 o’clock a. m. 
May 6 , 1921.) 

May 6, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf 
(representing Mr. Frank D, Ayers), 011 behalf of the contestant, Dan Parriilo; 
Mr. \\ illiam C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


FIFTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Asay. You may let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parriilo. after 
the fifteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward was tabulated on the recount and 
passed, as the record heretofore shows, desires to have the said precinct opened 
for reexamination, and it is agreed between the parties hereto that at the close 
of the recount of the other precincts in the sixteenth ward, that he may have that 
privilege, and that it will not be considered by either party as an infraction or 
breaking of any of their stipulations heretofore made. 

At the hour of 9.45 o’clock a. m. same day, May 6 , 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had and the following present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parriilo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the con¬ 
testee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


SEVENTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Wolf. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the par¬ 
ties, that in response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners have 
produced a ballot box which is marked the seventeenth precinct of the six¬ 
teenth ward. The box is unsealed. The flaps are not attached on either side. 
There is one strand of rope running around the box one way, very loosely, 
and the other strand is opened. The box can easily be opened and access had 
to the ballots. The telescopic top of the box covers the lower part of the box 
by about an inch. The following figures appear on the side of the box > 
“ 17-16.” On the face of the box, in the blanks provided, therefor, are writ¬ 
ten, in ink: “ 17th precinct of the 16th ward.” The word Democratic : 


Men’s_210 

Women’s_ 133 


Just before the 133 is written, in ink “ 13.” There are no figures under 
Republican “ men’s ” or “ women’s.” Under socialist there are two ciphers 
under “ men’s ” and two ciphers under “ women’s,” and there appear to be 
three signatures in the places provided for the signatures of judges of election. 

The poll book, on the cover thereof, recites that it is the poll book of the 
seventeenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, contains the usual printed matter 
and has the words and figures: 


Number of men voters-210 

Number of women voters-133 

Total_243 


Mr. Asay. It should be 343. 

Mr. Wolf. l T es; but I am reading it just as it appears here. It contains the 
usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate reciting that the elec¬ 
tion was held in the seventeenth precinct of the sixteenth ward on the second 
day of November, 1920, at the house of Jacob Basak, No. 1710 Blackhawk 
Street. It is signed in the three blanks provided for the signatures of the 
judges of election and in the two blanks provided for the signatures of the 
clerks of election, and an inspection of the poll book shows that there are in¬ 
scribed therein the names of 343 persons as having voted at said election. 

96674—22- 6 













80 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 12 o’clock noon, same day, May 6, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had and the following were present: Mr. Alexander Wolf (repre¬ 
senting Mr. Frank I). Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SIXTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Wolf. It is stipulated and agreed that the recount of the ballots of the 
sixteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board of election com¬ 
missioners, shows the following votes to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men______ 159 

Women_ 92 


Total_ 251 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 26 

Women_ 8 


Total_1_ 34 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 6 

Women___ 3 


Total_ 9 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_None. 

Women_ 2 


Total_ 2 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men- 191 

Women_ 105 


Grand total_ 296 


Twelve ballots, challenged by contestant, not counted for any one, sealed 
in an envelope, then sealed in the ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 1.30 o’clock p. in., same day, 
May 6, 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., May 6, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken, and those present were: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contes¬ 
tee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SIXTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being examined in chief by Mr. Wolf, testified as follows: 

Q. You are the same witness who testified heretofore in this contest—the 
same expert witness?—A. I am. 

Q. Yes. Have you examined the 12 challenged ballots in this precinct?—A. I 
have. 

Q. With the glass?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And with the naked eye?—A. Yes, sir. 


































parrillo ys. kunz. 81 

Q-'And you have arranged them in group 1 and group 2, have you not?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And one ballot separate?—A. One extra ballot. 

Q. One extra ballot. I call your attention to group No. 1, consisting of-A. 

Six ballots. 

Q. Six ballots. Have you enumerated them on the upper right-hand corner 
with the numerals of 1 to G, inclusive?—A. I have. 

Q* Will you describe group No. 1?—A. Group No. 1 consists of 6 ballots. 
Ballot No. 1 is a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top and it has 
two crosses at the candidates’ names in the Democrat column, one before the 
name Stanley H. Kunz, and the other before the name Joseph A. Trandel. In 
the men’s the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top was made by a 
different hand than the hand that made the two crosses in the Democrat 
column. 

Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top and a cross 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph H. Petlyk, in the Democrat col¬ 
umn. In my opinion the two crosses in the Democratic column were made by 
a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican column. 

Ballot No. 3 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot 
and a cross before the name Stanley Hemy Kunz. In my opinion these two 
crosses were made by different hands. 

Ballot No. 4 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top and two 
crosses in the Democratic column, one each before Stanley Henry Kunz and 
Joseph A. Trandel. In my opinion the two crosses in the Democratic column 
were made by a different hand than the cross by the Republican Party column 
at the top. 

Ballot No. 5 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the bal¬ 
lot and a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and before Joseph A. 
Trandel. In my opinion the two crosses in the Democratic column were made 
by a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top. 

Ballot No. 6 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the bal¬ 
lot and a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and Joseph A. Trandel in 
the Democratic column. In my opinion the two crosses in the Democratic 
column were made by a different hand than the hand that made the cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

In my opinion each of the crosses in the top circles on the top of these six 
ballots were made by a different and dstinct hand, and two of the crosses 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz throughout these six ballots were made 
by one and the same hand from all straight Republican ballots. Four of these 
ballots were women Republicans and two of them were men Republicans. 

Cross-examination by Mr. As ay : 

Q. The 4 ballots that you mention for Republican and for Democratic— 
four women Republicans and four men Republicans?—A. Two. 

Q. You don’t mean to say that you know which was voted first; you mean 
that simply by that—you didn’t get this number right, four women Republi¬ 
cans and two men—you mean by four women Republicans and two men Re¬ 
publicans, these were the ballots, the ones that had the cross in the Republican 
circle?—A. l T es. 

Q. You are not passing on any other proposition at this time?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were all these various crosses on all the ballots made in pencil?—A. They 
were all made in ink. 

• Q. They were all made in ink?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All right. And you have come to the conclusion or opinion that you have 
enunciated here simply by visual examination?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. The contestant claims that each and every one of these ballots 
should not be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, but, on the contrary, should 
be counted for Dan Parrillo. The contestee, on his part, maintains that the 
ballots'should all be counted as marked, Stanley Henry Kunz, and not for 
Parrillo. We will take Group No. 2. 

Direct examination by Mr. Wolf : 

Q. Group No. 2?—A. Group No. 2 consists of five ballots. 

Q. Describe each one; what is No. 1?—A. No. 1 is numbered in the upper 
right-hand corner with lead pencil, from 1 to 5, inclusive. No. 1 has a pencil 
cross in the Democratic Party column. 



82 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 




Q. Party circle?—A. Party circle, at tlie top of the ballot; and in my opinion 
there was a lead-pencil cross before every name in the Democratic column. 

Q. That is, in addition to the cross in the circle?—A. That is, in addition 
to the cross in the circle. I am a little bit in doubt as to whether there is 
a pencil cross before the name of James M. Dolan, for the reason that in that 
cross as well as in the other crosses- 

Q. Name them.—A. In the three other squares—make that squares instead 
or crosses—Stanley Henry Kunz, Joseph Petlak, Joseph A. Trandel, and James 
M. Dolan, the ink crosses have been over pencil crosses and the ink cross in 
front of the name James M. Dolan is so blotted that it is impossible for me 
to say whether there was a pencil cross underneath that name or not, but 
underneath the ink that now appears in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
there is a very distinct lead-pencil mark. In my opinion these ink crosses 
were made by a different hand than the hand that made the pencil crosses 
throughout this ballot. No. 2- 

Q. I didn’t ask you one question; what have you got to say—was there two 
or more persons, in your opinion, made these pencil crosses?—A. Just read my 
last answer. 

Q. How about the lead pencil—you have not covered this?—A. I have; my 
last answer covered this. I want you to read the last answer of mine about 
this ink which was made in a different hand. 

(Answer read, as follows:) 

ut There is a very distinct lead-pencil mark. In my opinion these ink crosses 
were made by a different hand than the hand that made the pencil crosses 
throughout this ballot.” 

A. (Continuing.) Ballot N©. 2 does not have any cross in any of the party 
circles at the top of the ballot. There are five crosses in the Democrat column. 
In my opinion the cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, as well as 
each of the other crosses here in this Democrat column, were made by one and 
the same hand, but a different hand than the hand that made a mark which 
would not officially be called a cross in front of the name Warren G. Harding 
for President of the United States; and that these marks in the Democrat 
column were made by the same hand that made the ink crosses on ballot No. 1. 

Q. Let me ask you a question.—A. All right. 

Q. When you speak of the cross made in the Democrat colum you refer, do 
you not, to the crosses made in the sections before the candidates’ names?— 
A. I do. 

Q. That is what I want to get at.—A. Ballot No. 3 has a cross in the Repub¬ 
lican Party circle at the top of the ballot; one cross before the name Joseph F. 
Pass, in the Republican column; and three crosses before candidates’ names 
in the Democrat column. In my opinion the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top was made by a different hand than the hand that made all of 
the other crosses on the ballot, but the hand that made the other crosses on 
the ballot was the same hand that made the cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz on the previous ballots. 

Q. In this group?—A. In this group, and one of these crosses in the Demo¬ 
cratic column as . before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 4 does 
not have any cross in the party circle at. the top of the ballot. There are four 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column. There is a cross 
in front of the name James M. Cox, President of the United States, which 
cross, in my opinion, was made by the same hand that made the crosses in 
front of the names T. J. Crowe and Walter J. LaBuy, on the Democratic 
column. The two crosses, one in front of Stanley Henry Kunz’s name, and 
the other one before Joseph A. Trandel’s name, in my opinion, were made by* 
one and the same hand and a different hand than the hand that made the other 
three crosses mentioned on this ballot, but by the same hand that made the 
crosses in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the previous bal¬ 
lots in this group. Ballot No. 5 does not have any cross in the party circle 
at the top of the ballot. There is a cross in front of the electors for President 
in the Republican column, and all of these crosses are identical in their con¬ 
struction. From that place down on the ballot there are marks before various 
candidates on each of the Democratic and Republican tickets. One of these 
crosses is in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion all of the 
crosses on this ballot except those in front of the Republican electors were 
made by one'and the same hand and a different hand than the hand that made 
the cross in front of the Republican electors, but were made by the same 





PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 83 

hand that made the crosses in front of the name Stanley Henry ICuuz on eacii 
of the previous-mentioned ballots of this group. 

Q. Have .you identified this Group No. 1 and Group No. 2 by pinning to each 
of the groups a piece of paper upon which you have marked “Group No 1” 
and “Group No. 2”?—A. I have. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. I call jour attention to ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2. You examined them 
with the glass, these crosses?—A. I did. 

Q. That is the ballot that has three crosses in ink, I believe?—A. Yes. 

Q. One of which said crosses is placed before the name of Stanley Henry 
Kunz?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you have testified you believe that that cross was superimposed from 
the pencil cross? -A. I believe all of them were. I am a little in doubt as to 
the one in front of (he name Dolan on account of it being blotted. 

(). What is your opinion with reference to who made the crosses in ink 
over the pencil mark? Were they made by the same person or by a different 
persons and were they the original pencil crosses?—A. As far as possible for 
me to see underneath the ink I believe they are all made by the same person. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestant that ballot- 

Q. You mean, it was inked over?—A. From the fact that that same thing 
runs through—it is through—I draw that inference. 

Q. In other words, how do you think this ballot should be counted? Now, as¬ 
suming from your own statement that it Yvas marked by the same person all the 
way through for the Democratic candidates and some fellow who had done 
crooked work in other precincts came in and marked it in ink, how should the 
ballot be counted?—A. That depends on which way you look at it. Originally 
it was a perfectly good ballot. 

Q. For Kunz?—A. For Kunz. 

Q. And then somebody, after it' was a good ballot, put ink on the crosses; is 
that right?—A. That is right. 

Mr. Asay. I am trying to get in the record what is the claim on that. Should 
it be thrown out? I want to be fair. 

The Witness. I simply held this out as an illustration corroborating evidence. 

Mr. Asay. Is it your purpose to have it counted? 

Mr. Parrillo. I think it ought to be thrown out. It is marked twice by two 
different hands. That is what I think. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestant that the first ballot in this 
group should be thrown out and not included in the count for Stanley Kunz. 

Ballot No. 2, it is the contention of the contestee that it should be counted 
for Stanley Henry Kunz. Ballot No. 2, it is the contention of the contestant 
that said ballot should not be counted for anybody in Congress and Stanley 
Henry Kunz should not be entitled to a vote herein. 

Ballot No. 3, it is the contention of the contestant that this ballot should be 
counted for Dan Parrillo and that Stanley Henry Kunz—that it should not be 
counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. Contestee claims it should be counted for 
Stanley Kunz and not for Parrillo. 

Ballot No. 4, it is the contention of the contestant that this ballot should not 
be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz and should be considered a blank ballot. It 
is the contention of the contestee that it be counted for Kunz and not be re¬ 
corded as blank. 

Ballott No. 5, it is the contention of the contestant that this ballot should not 
be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz and should be recorded as a blank; and it 
is the contention of the contestee that this ballot should be counted for Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

Direct examination by Mr. Wolf : 

Q. Now, I call your attention to the ballot which is not attached to Groups 
No. 1 or No. 2, and stands by itself and will ask you to describe it.—A. This is 
a man’s ballot and has a cross in pencil at the top. 

Q. In ink or in pencil?—A. In ink. There is a cross in front of the name 
Joseph A. Trandel and some ink marks in front of the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz. It is a question as to whether that ink mark in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz constitutes a cross. 

Q. Have you an opinion as to whether or not it constitutes a cross—in other 
words, whether the two lines intersect or not?—A. I have. 

Q. What is the opinion?—A. It is my opinion that it did intersect before they 


were 




84 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. It originally intersected before it was blotted.—A. It is difficult to tell 
now just wliat they were. 

Q. Describe the ballot further. What is your opinion in reference—have you 
an op nion—if you have formed any opinion, I do not mean have you any opinion, 
but have you formed an opinion with reference to that hand, to whether the 
same had marked in the circles, marked in the squares or not?—A. I have 
formed a partial opinion on that, from this standpoint, that the ink used in both 
these crosses seems to be the same ink, used the same ink, the Socialist column. 
Both these crosses are more or less distorted to such an extent that I would 
not want to say definitely that they were or were not. 

Q. You have an opinion, I see. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestant that the ballots should be 
counted for Stockbridge and not for Stanley Henry Kunz. It is the contention 
of the contestee that the same ballots should be counted for Stanley Henry 
Kunz and not counted for Stockbridge. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. In all your testimony given so far in the contest, including this precinct, 
it is founded upon the assumption and founded on visual examination in each 
case?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. The ballots just described by the expert and his opinion expressed 
thereon are, in accordance with our agreement of the parties, to be sealed up 
in on envelope and that envelope in turn sealed up in the ballot box and kept 
subject to the right of opening and scrutinizing Of the congressional committee 
if they so see fit, or by contestee when he presents his case. 

At the hour of 3 o’clock p. m., same day, May 6, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the con¬ 
testee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

EIGHTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Wolf. The ballot box, produced in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
appears on the outside in the proper blanks, that it came from the eighteenth 
precinct of the sixteenth ward: 

Democratic men—it is very hard to read, but it looks like: 


Men_223 

Women_185 

Republican: 

Men_ 21 

Women_,_ 5 


The ballot box appears on the outside “ 18-16 ” and is tied up. The flap on 
one side is loose—not gummed down—and the other side is gummed down. It 
is tied with a double string going completely around the box, not sealed. 

The poll book appears upon an inspection to be the eighteenth precinct of 
the sixteenth ward. The number of men voters 247, and women 187; a total 
of 434. On the inside of the poll book is a certificate, an election was held 
in the eighteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward at the house of M. INI. Grabarski, 
1322 Cleaver Street, signed in the proper blanks for judges of election by three 
names and in the proper blank for the clerks of election by two names; and 
the poll books show the total number of voters, their names and addresses, as 
434. You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the votes as you have 
in the other precincts. 

At the hour of 4 o’clock p. m., same day, May 6, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Alexander AVolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayres) on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the con¬ 
testee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SEVENTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the con¬ 
testant, and being examined in chief by Mr. Wolf, testified as follows: 

Q. Are you the same gentleman who testified, Mr. Rounds, in the previous 
precincts in this contest?—A. I am. 







PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


85 


Q. Have you made an examination of the 8 ballots challenged on behalf of 
the contestant; have you made such examination?—A. I have. 

Q. And from such examination which was visual, I presume, was it?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you able to express an opinion, give us an opinion as to any reference 
thereto?—A. I am. 

Q. Will you kindly describe—have you numbered the ballots 1 to 8, in¬ 
clusive, in the right-band corner, upper right-hand corner?—A. I have. 

Q. Will you kindly read into the record your examination of each one of 
the ballots, beginning with No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 1 is a man’s ballot, which 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot made in a 
blue ink. In the body of the ballot there is a cross in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz and a cross in front of the name Joseph Petlak, both of 
these being in a faded gray ink, both made in the same hand and a different 
hand than the hand that made the crosses at the top of the ballot. 

Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot and it has a cross, has three crosses in the Democratic column, Kunz, 
Petlak, and Trandel; and in my opinion the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the cross before Petlak and Trandel were made by the same 
hand and the cross in front of Stanley Henry Kunz being made by a different 
hand with slightly'different colored ink. 

Ballot No. 3 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top and four 
crosses in the Democrat column before the names Kunz, Petlak, Trandel, and 
LaBuy. In my opinion the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top 
was made by the same hand and in the same ink that made the cross before 
the name Trandel, and that the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, 
Joseph Petlak, and Walter LaBuy was made by a different hand than the one 
that made the cross in the Republican Party circle or before the name Trandel. 

Ballot No. 4 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot 
and three crosses in the Democrat column before candidates’ names, Kunz, 
Petlak, and Trandels. In my opinion the three crosses in the Democrat column 
were made by a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Repub¬ 
lican Party circle at the top. 

Ballot No. 5 is a woman’s ballot and has a cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top and other crosses in the Democratic column before various candidates’ 
names, one of them being before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion 
each of^tliese crosses in the Democratic column was made by a different hand 
than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top. 

Mr. Wolf. Contestant claims that the five ballots just described by the expert 
should be counted for Mr. Parrillo, the contestant, and should not be counted 
for Kunz, the contestee. The contestee claims that they should be counted for 
Mr. Kunz and not for Mr. Parrillo. And in that connection I will ask the wit¬ 
ness where you have not mentioned in your testimony regarding these 5 ballots, 
where you have not mentioned or said that the crosses on the 5 ballots on the 
Democratic side that you think were made by a different person than made 
the one in the Republican circles in each ballot and have refrained from stating 
whether or not such crosses were made by the same person in all five of these 
ballots, it was not your intention to be understood, was it, that they were made 
by the same person, in your opinion? 

A. Just let me glance at them [witness examining ballots]. No, sir. 

Q. In other words, you do not claim that these ballots show that the crosses 
in the Democratic squares in each and every one of these five were made by the 
same persons; is that right?—A. No; I do not. 

Q. All right. Now go on with the ballots.—A. Ballot No. 6 does not have any 
cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot. It has four crosses in the 
Democratic column before candidates’ names, one of them being before the 
name “ Stanley Kuflewski, elector,” and of the three one is before each of the 
names “ Kunz,” “ Petlak,” and “ Trandel.” In my opinion the three crosses- 

Q. Last named?—A. Last named are made by a different hand and different 
ink than the one before the Democratic elector. 

Mr. Wolf. The contestant claims that this ballot should not be counted for 
Stanley Henry Kunz and should be considered a blank. The contestee claims 
that the ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Ballot No. 7 has been by agreement included in the recount and credited to 
Mr. Kunz. This leaves the group of ballots counted by Mr. Rounds as con¬ 
sisting of 1 to 6, inclusive, and No. 8. 


86 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, testify as to No. 8.—A. Ballot No. 8 does not have any 
cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot; it has three crosses before 
candidates’ names in the Republican column and four crosses in front of four 
candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of the crosses* in the Demo' 
cratic column being before the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz,” which cross is in 
a distinctly different colored ink than any other crosses on the ballot. 

Mr. Wolf. It is insisted by the contestant that this ballot should not be 
counted for Kunz, but should be considered as a blank ballot. 

Q. That is correct, is it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wolf. The contestee claims that the ballot should be counted for Kunz, 
as marked. The other objected-to ballots, in accordance with the stipulation, 
are to be placed in an envelope and duly sealed up, and that the same envelope 
thus sealed should be placed in the ballot box and it accordingly sealed and held 
over at the action of the committee of the inspection thereby, or subject to the 
right of contestee to have the same reexamined. 

At the hour of 4.30 o’clock p. m. same day, May 6, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had : 

Present: Mr. Alexander Wolf (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

SEVENTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 


Mr. W olf. It is stipulated that the recount shows the following vote was re¬ 


ceived by each candidate: 

Votes cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_183 

Women_110 

Total_1_293 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_i_ 21 

Women_._ 14 

Total___ 35 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 4 

Women_ 4 

Total_ 8 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 1 

Women__— 0 

Total___ 1 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men_'_2Q9 

Women_:-128 

Grand total_337 


Seven ballots challenged by the contestant, not counted by either party, sealed 
in an envelope and then sealed in the ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 9,1921.) 

May 9, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 9, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore takdn. 

Present: Mr, Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouil- 
let (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William G. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


87 


NINETEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties that in response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners have 
produced a ballot box, which is marked the nineteenth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward. The ballot box shows on the outside, in the proper blank, the following: 

Nineteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward: 

Democratic-— 


Men- 107 

Women_ 120 

Republican—- 

Men_ 29 

Women_.___ 11 


It is apparently signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided 
for the names of judges of election. 

This ballot box has one flap sealed or gummed down, and the other one is 
loose and is fastened by the rope going around both ways and sealed. 

The ballot box shows, in the proper blanks on the cover, the following: 

Nineteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward: 


Number of men voters_ 167 

Number of women voters_ 120 


Total_ 287 

It contains the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate re¬ 
citing that the election was held in the nineteenth precinct of the sixteenth 

ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of-, 1241 Noble 

Street, and it is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for 
the signatures of the judges of election, and by two persons in the blanks, pro¬ 
vided for the signatures of clerks of election; and an inspection of the poll book 
shows that there are inscribed therein the names of 287 persons as having voted 
at the said election. 

There is also in this precinct a bundle of ballots, apparently tied up three 
ways by the rope, not sealed and not inclosed in any cover, and it is marked 
on the outside, “ Precinct 19, ward 16.” 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein contained. 
(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

Mr. Beouillet. Let the record show that after opening the ballot box it is 
found that the only ballots in the ballot box are the judicial and proposition 

Now you may proceed to open the bundle and count ballots therein contained. 
(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

The parties met at 9.80 o’clock a. m., May 9, 1921, puisuant to adjournment 

heretofore taken. . . ... „ , . 

Present • Mr. Guv C. Crapple, commissioner, presidingMr. Hector A. 

Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


eighteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward resumed. 

The Commissioner. The hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 

heretofore taken. , , , 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 

and being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows: 

q Mr. ^Rounds, you are the same gentleman that has been testifying on 
behalf of the contestant, as an expert, in this contest; are you ? A. I am. 

Q. Have you examined the 11 ballots that have been challenged, in the 
eighteenth precinct, of the sixteenth ward, A. I luno. 

Q. And have you grouped them into groups?—A. I have. 
q How many groups have you made?—A. Two groups, and one extra ballot. 












88 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. Let us look at that extra ballot first. Will you describe it, Mr. Rounds?— 
A. The extra ballot has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the 
ballot. It has four crosses in the Democrat column, before Democratic 
names- 

Q. In the squares?—A. In the squares; yes, sir. Including one before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. And what did you find in the square before the name Dan Parrillo, if 
anything?—A. In the square before the name Dan Parrillo, is a distinct cross, 
blotted out by drawing lines over it until the cross is nearly obliterated, but at 
the same time it is plainly distinct by looking at the back, and also not so 
plain from the front of the ballot. 

Mr. Bkouillet. Let the record show, that it is the contention of the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, that this ballot should be counted as a blank. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
that it should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Bkouillet. Also let the record show, that this ballot will lie placed with 
the other ballots, in an envelope that is sealed, and which will be marked “ a,” 
at the upper right-hand corner. 

Q. Now, you may proceed to describe the ballots in Group No. 1.—A. Group 
No. 1 consists of 6 men ballots, each one ha ving a cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot. In my opinion, each of these crosses at the 
top of these six ballots, were made by a different and distinct hand. Each of the 
six ballots, in addition to other crosses on the face of the ballots, have a cross 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, these crosses before the name, Stanley Henry Kunz, through¬ 
out these 6 ballots, were made by one and the same person, and with one and 
the same ink, the ink varying from the other ink used on each and every one 
of the ballots on which it appears. 

Q. Now, describe ballot No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 1, of Group No. 1, has 15 crosses 
in the squares before names in the Republican column, one cross before candi¬ 
dates’ names in the Socialist column, and one cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, in the Democrat column. 

In my opinion, all of the crosses on this ballot, with the exception of the one 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, was made by one and the same hand, 
and with the same ink, and a different hand and a different ink than that 
which made the cross before the name, Stanley H. Kunz. 

There is a cross in the square before the name, Dan Parrillo, on this bailor, 
which is in a different ink than the ink used in the cross before the name, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, and is in the same ink as the cross in the party circle 
at the top of the ballot, and other crosses on the ballot, with the exception of 
the cross in the square before the name, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2, of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 2, of Group No. 1, 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top. It has three crosses 
in the Democrat column, one before the name, Stanley Henry Kunz, one before 
the name, Joseph Petlak, and one before the name, Joseph A. Trandel. 

In my opinion, the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top also made the cross before the name, Joseph A. Trandel, but the 
hand that made the cross before the name, Stanley H. Kunz—Stanley Henry 
Kunz—made the cross before the name, Joseph Petlak, and these last two 
crosses are made with a distinctly different ink and a different kind of a cross 
than the first two mentioned crosses. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3, of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 3, of Group No. J, 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and has two 
crosses before candidates’ names, in the Democrat column, and an attempt at 
a cross before the name, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

This attempt of a cross before the name, Stanley Henry Kunz, is made by a 
different hand and with a different ink than all of the other crosses on the 
ballot, but with the same ink that made the crosses in front of the name, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, on each of the previous-mentioned ballots in this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1 ?—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, a number of 
crosses in the Republican column, including the name Dan Parrillo. There are 
three crosses in the Democrat column, one of which is before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz. All of the crosses in this ballot, in my opinion, were made by one 
and the same hand, with the exception of the one before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz, which was made with a distinctly different ink and a different kind of 
cross ; and, in my opinion, these crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz 







parrillo ys. kunz. 


89 


saws sr„"”" “• - ™~ » »» 

Kunz were made hv H,p n *a tha ? the ()ne before the name Stanley Ilenry 
w Sn . . I he saille hand and with the same ink. The one before the 

hiii hv h * \ 11 ■' i Vllll i Z ' N:,s m ade by a different hand and with a different ink 

H?n™r the S, '"m ta , k I’ 8 t,IP Iiand lhat the croL be! 
,, r ' 1 .. k . aj 1 Hem j Kunz on the ballots previously mentioned 

Q. Describe ballot No. 6 of Group No. 1?—A. Ballot No. 6 of Group No. 1 has 

hi\he'\)enu ^ ^ P * arty circle at the to l ) of the ballot and three crosses 

PpimhT ,° I 01 Vp bef ° i ,, e candidates’ names, Stanley Henry Kunz. Joseph 
>i i“th\ anfl ,To ? ep h A - ll *nndel. The cross before the name Joseph A. Trandel 
mid the cross m the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot were in 
my opinion, made by the same hand and with the same ink, while the crosses 
** ,re th ? Stanley Henry Kunz an,l Joseph Petlak. in my opinion‘were 

(.Kli in-Kle by the same hand and with the same ink, but by a different hand 
and with different ink than the hand that made the two crosses—the first two 
mentioned crosses, but the same hand and the same ink that made the crosses 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the previous ballots of this 
group. 

Mi. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is the contention of the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, that each and every one of the six ballots in Group No. 1 should 
he counted for Dan Parrillo, the contestant, and not counted for the contestee 
Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is the contention of the contestee that 
ballot No. 1 should be a blank, and not counted for either party; that ballot No. 
2 should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz; that ballot No. 3 
should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz; that ballot No. 4 should 
he counted as a blank ballot; that ballot No. 5 should be counted for the con¬ 
testee, Stanley Henry Kunz; and that ballot No. 6 should be counted for con¬ 
testee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 


Cross-examination by Mr. Asay ; 

All the markings on the six ballots in this group which you have mentioned 
appear to the naked eye, do they not?—A. They do. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 


Redirect examination by Mr. Brouillet: 

Q. Now, as to Group No. 2, how many ballots does that consist of?—A. Group 
No. 2 consists of 4 ballots, 1 having a cross in the Single Tax Party circle at 
the top of the ballot. 

Q. Have you marked the ballots in this group from Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive?— 
A. I have. 

Q. On the outside of these two groups you have pinned a pnper and marked 
on each one the figure from No. 1 to No. 4, inclusive, have you?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2 
has a cross in green ink in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot 
and two crosses in the Single Tax column, in the same colored ink, and in the 
same hand. 

There are three crosses in the Democrat column, one before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, each of these three crosses being in the same colored ink and the 
same nature of a cross, which is a different ink and a different cross than that 
of the first three crosses. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2 does 
not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot. It has three 
crosses before the electors in the Republican column, which are made with 
bine ink, and there is one cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, which 
is in a distinctly different colored ink and is a distinctly different kind of a 
cross, and in my opinion was made by a different hand than the hand that made 
the crosses on the other ballot, but the same hand that made the cross before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 1. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 3 has no mark in the 
party circle at the top of the ballot. It has six crosses in the body of the 
ballot in the Democrat column before candidates’ names, in addition to one 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 


90 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Each of the six crosses were made with green ink, and the one before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz is made in a distinctly different colored ink and 
nature of a cross, and made by the same hand and with the same ink that made 
the crosses in the ballots previously mentioned in this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2 
does not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot. It has a 
cross before the name Dan Parrillo and a cross before the name Edward Walz 
in the Republican column and a cross in the square before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz. The two crosses in the Republican column are in blue ink and 
are made by the same hand. The cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
is a distinctly different ink and a different hand but the same ink and the same 
hand that made the crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz in each of the 
previous ballots mentioned in this group; and, further, all of the crosses before 
the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz,” in Group No. 1 and Group No. 2, were all made 
by the same hand and the same ink. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. The descriptions given by you of the 4 ballots in Group No. 2 are all 
apparent to the naked eye, are they not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. That is all, 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is the contention of the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, that ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2 should be counted as a blank and 
not counted for c-ontestee, Stanley Henry Kunz; that ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2 
should be counted ns a blank ballot and not counted for contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz; that ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2 should be counted as a blank and not 
counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz; that ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2 
should be counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo, and not counted for contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is the contention of the contestee, Stan¬ 
ley Henry Kunz, that ballots No. 1 and No. 2 and No. 3 of Group No. 2 should be 
counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and that ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2 
should be counted as a blank ballot. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that the ballots contained in these two 
groups, together with the odd ballot, will now be sealed in an envelope, and that 
the envelope in turn will be sealed in the ballot box, and that these ballots will 
not be counted for anybody, to be held to await the action of the congressional 
committee or the action of the contestee later on, if he so desires. 

At the hour of 11.15 o’clock a. m. same day, May 9, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

NINETEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows; 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you are the same gentleman that has testified as an expert for 
the contestant in this election contest, are you?—A. I am. 

Q. Have you examined the three challenged ballots in the nineteenth precinct 
of the sixteenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. The first ballot has a cross in the Democratic Party circle at the top of the 
ballot and has other crosses in the Democratic column, and also a cross before 
two candidates’ names in the Republican column, in the squares before their 
names, one of which is in the square before the name Dan Parrillo, and an at¬ 
tempt made to erase it in ink, is that right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And there is a cross in the square before the name, Stanley Henry 
Kunz?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in' the Republican Party circle and a cross in the 
square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and a cross in the squares before 
the names of two or three other candidates in the Democratic column; also a 
cross in the square before the name Dan Parrillo, which has been attempted to 
be erased by blotting; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Also ballot No. 3 has a cross in the Republican Party circle, which has been 
attempted to be erased and blotted, and a cross in ink before the Democratic 
Party circle; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 




PARRILLO VS, KUNZ. 


91 


Q. There are also three other crosses in the Democratic squares before the 
names of candidates, but none in regard to Congressmen; is that right?—A. 
That is right. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is the contention of the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, that ballot No. 1 should be counted as a blank ballot for Congress¬ 
men ; that ballot No. 2 should be counted as a blank ballot for Congressmen; 
that ballot No. 3 should be counted as a blank ballot for Congressmen. 

^ Mr. Asay. And let the record show that it is the contention of contestee, 
Stanley Henry Ivunz, that all three of these ballots should be counted as con- 
testee’s, Stanley Henry Ivunz. 

Mr. Brouillet. Also let the record show that these ballots will not be counted 
lor any one; that they will be sealed up in an envelope, and that envelope will 
in turn be sealed up in the ballot box and the ballot box in turn will be held to 
await the action of the congressional district or the action of the contestee 
later on, if he so desired. 

At the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m. same day, May 9, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on be¬ 
half of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the 
contestee, Stanley Henry Ivunz. 

EIGHTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the eighteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board of elec¬ 
tion commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the 


various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Ivunz: 

Men-209 

Women_ 176 


Total_385 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men___ 23 

Women_ 7 


Total___ 30 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 1 

Women___ 4 


Total___ 5 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ _ _ 0 

Women_i_ 0 

Total_-_ 0 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_-_233 

Women_187 

Grand total-420 


Ten men’s ballots contested, not counted for either party. 

One woman’s ballot contested, not counted for either party. 

At the hour of 11.35 o’clock a. nr. same day, May 9, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on 
behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the 
contestee, Stanley Henry Ivunz. 































92 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


NINETEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

f 

Mr. Biiouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the re¬ 
count of the nineteenth precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board 
of election commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received 
by the various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_i__130 

Women_,_101 

Total__231 


0 

0 

0 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_166 

Women_,_118 


Grand total_284 

At the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m., same day, May 9, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on 
behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

TWENTIETH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH W T ARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties that in response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners 
have produced a ballot box which is marked the twentieth precinct of the 
sixteenth ward. The flaps are gummed and it is tied around with a string 
two ways. There appears on the outside of the ballot box a certificate showing 
that it is the ballot box from the twentieth precinct of the sixteenth ward. 
There are no figures whatever in any of the blanks for the number of candi¬ 
dates’ ballots. It is apparently signed by two names in the blanks provided 
for the names of judges of election. 

There is also a bag of heavy cloth, apparently tied around a number of 
times with a string and bearing a card containing the words, “ Twentieth 
precinct of the sixteenth ward,” and tied up on the outside is a piece of paper 
upon which bears the following, “ Twentieth precinct of the sixteenth ward, 
Eva N. Rakrodkowski.” 

The poll book on the cover thereof recites that it is the poll book of the 
twentieth precinct of the sixteenth ward, and contains the following words and 


figures; 

Number of men voters_231 

Number of women voters_1_148 

Total- 379 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 

Women_/_ 

Total_ 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 

W omen_ s _ 

Total_ } _ 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ t _ 

Women_,_ 

Total .a_ 




































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


93 


It contains the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate 
reciting that the election was held in the twentieth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward on the second day of November, 1920, at the house of Tomaszewski, 1228 
Noble Street, and is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks pro¬ 
vided for the signatures of the judges of election and by two persons in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of election, and an inspection of 
the poll book shoks that there are inscribed therein the names of 379 persons 
as having voted at the said election. It is signed on the three hundred and 
eightieth line by the name of the three judges of election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock, same 
day, May 9, 1921. Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 
9.30 o’clock a. in., May 10, 1921.) 

May 10, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. in., May 10, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf 
of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

TWENTY-FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 


Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties that in response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners have 
produced a ballot box which is marked the twenty-first precinct of the sixteenth 
ward, signed apparently by the names of three persons in the blanks provided 
for the signatures of judges of election, and the words and figures “ total, 882 ” 
in ink. • 

The box also has marked on it, in pencil, “ 21-16,” on the outside, and both 
flaps apparently are sealed, and there is a rope around the box, the rope being 
fastened both ways around the same, and it is sealed with sealing wax on one 
side. 

The poll book on the cover thereof recites that it is the poll book of the twenty- 
first precinct of the sixteenth ward, and contains the words and figures: 

Number or men voters- 210 

Number of women voters..- 113 

Total_ 323 

It contains the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate 
reciting that the election was held in the twenty-first precinct of the sixteenth 
ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of Anton Rudnicki. at No. 
1219 Dixon Street, and is signed by the names of three persons in the b anks 
nrovided for the signatures of the judges of election, and by two persons in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of the clerks of election, and an inspection of 
the poll book shows that there are inscribed therein the names of o-3 persons as 

ha Yolf nmy ( proceecf to^operT'tlie ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. m., same day, May 10, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had, the same parties being present as last noted: 

TWENTIETH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOW \RD A ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and beinffmther examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows: 

i iZyZrj: wM^ed *>, **— 

heretofore in this election contest?—A. I am, jes, sn. 

Q. HaveTou examfned^he chalTeng^fba^otTifthe twentieth* precinct of the 

Q.’ How many groups have you assembled them into?—A. Into two group.. 







94 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. And what does the first group consist of?—A. Group No. 1 consists of four 
ballots, numbered from 1 to 4, inclusive, and marked in the upper right-hand 
corner. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1 of Group No. 1?—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and four 
crosses before the candidates’ names in the Democratic column, including one 
before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion, each of these crosses 
in the Democratic column were made by a different hand and a different pen 
than the hand and pen that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at 
the top. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at. the top of the ballot and four 
crosses in the Democratic column before candidates’ names, one of which is 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the four crosses in the 
Democratic column were made by a different hand and pen than the hand and 
pen that made the crosses in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and one 
cross before the name Robert. E. Crowe in the Republican column and three 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is be¬ 
fore the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the crosses in the Democratic 
column were made by a different hand than the hand that made the crosses in 
front of the name Robert E. Crowe and in the Republican Party circle at the 
top of the ballot, and that the hand that made the cross before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz was the same on this ballot that made the crosses on 
ballots No. 1 and No. 2. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot in green ink. 
There are seven crosses in the squares before the candidates’ names in the 
Democratic column, one of which is before the name ‘Stanley Henry Kunz. 
Each of these crosses in the Democratic column is made with a purplish ink, 
being a different ink than the ink used in making the crosses in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot. In my opinion these crosses in the Demo¬ 
cratic column were made by a different hand than the hand that made the 
cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Will you fasten these four ballots in Group 1 with a pin, and note on this 
group the number of ballots, showing they are different numbers?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you done so, Mr. Rounds?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. As ay. That is all. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that 
these four ballots should be counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo, for Congress, 
and not counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee that the ballots be counted 
for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, as marked. 

Q. These characteristics that you testified to in regard to Group No. 1 are 
apparent to the naked eye, are they not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Brouielet : 

Q. Now, Group No. 2, how many ballots are there in that group?—A. Two 
ballots. 

Q. Describe the ballots in group No. 2?—A. Group No. 2 consists of two 
ballots, each having a cross in the Democrat circle at the top of the ballot. 

Q. Before you proceed to describe these ballots let me ask you first: You 
have numbered these ballots 1 and 2 in the upper right-hand corner; have you, 
Mr. Rounds?—A. I have. 

Q. Now, describe ballot No. 1 in group No. 2?—A. Ballot No. 1 in group 
No. 2 has a cross in the Democrat Party circle at the top of the ballot, made 
with purple ink. There is a cross in front of the name Joseph A. Trandel in 
the Democrat column, also made in purple ink. There is a cross in front of 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz, made with a distinct blue ink. In my opinion, 
this cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, was made by a different 
hand than the hand that made the other two crosses on the ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of group No. 2?—A. Ballot No. 2 of group No. 2 
has a cross in the Democrat Party circle at the top of the ballot made with 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


95 


a distinct bine ink. There is a cross in front of the name Joseph A. Trandel 
in the Democrat column made in the same color of ink as the cross in the party 
circle at the top of the ballot. There is a cross before the name of Stanley 
Henry Kunz made with a purple ink, and, in my opinion, it was made by a 
different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Democrat Party circle 
at the top of the ballot and before the name Joseph A. Trandel. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Both of these ballots have characteristics that are patent to the naked 
eye, have they not, Mr. Rounds?—A. They have. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, are there any other marks on ballot No. 1 or ballot No. 2 
than those which you have referred to in describing these two ballots in 
group No. 2?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then, there is no question, Mr. Rounds, as to the intention of the voter 
or the intention of the party other than the one that marked these ballots 
that the same should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. No, sir. 

Q. One of these crosses—one in the circle or the crosses before the 
squares—were made by the voter, were they not?—A. It would be difficult to. 
say. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that these 
ballots were short penciled, either in one place or the other, and should be 
taken into consideration with reference to group No. 1 in this precinct for the 
purpose of comparison. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee that these ballots should be 
counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Brouillet. In accordance with the custom heretofore followed, the bal¬ 
lots contained in group No. 1 and group No. 2 will not be counted for anybody, 
but will be placed in a sealed envelope and this envelope again sealed in the 
ballot box, which ballot box will be sealed up and held to await the action of 
the congressional committee or to await further action of the contestee here¬ 
after, if he so desires. 

At the hour of 11.15 o’clock a. m. same day, May 10, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

TWENTIETH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the twentieth precinct of the sixteenth ward as made by the board of election 
commissioners shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 


Men_ 175 

Women_119 

Total___ 294 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo : 


Men_ 39 

Women_ 21 

Total_ 60 


Blank votes: 


Men___ 4 

Women_ 8 


Total_ 12 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 6 

Women_None. 


Total 


6 


96674—22-7 























96 


PARRILLO vs. kunz. 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men_224 

Women_148 

Grand total_372 


Five men’s and one woman’s ballot challenged by contestant, not counted by 
either party, to be sealed in an envelope and then sealed in the ballot box. 

At the hour of 1 o’clock p. m. same day, May 10, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated: 

TWENTY-FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows: 

Q. Are you the same gentleman that has testified on behalf of the contestant 
heretofore in this election contest?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your name is Howard A. Rounds?—-A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you examined the challenged ballots in this precinct?—A. I have. 

Q. And have you taken from them 8 ballots, Mr. Rounds?—A. I have. 

Q. Seven men’s ballots and one woman’s ballot; is that right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And have you numbered them in the upper right-hand corner 1 to 8, in¬ 
clusive?—A. I have. 

Q. Will you describe ballot No. 1, please?—A. Ballot No. 1 has a cross in 
front of the name Robert E. Crowe in the Republican column and a cross in 
front of a majority of the candidates named in the Democrat column. 

Q. Are there any other crosses on the ballot. Mr. Rounds?—A. No. 

Q. Is there a cross before the name James M. Cox, but not in the circle?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. All right. Are those crosses all in lead pencil or all in ink?—A. They are 
all in lead pencil. 

Q. All of the crosses are in lead pencil?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Proceed with your description of ballot No. 1.—A. All of these crosses 
in the Democrat column, with the exception of the one before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, seem to be of the same character and about the same heft of 
pencil. The one in front of the name of Stanley Henry Kunz is a distinctly 
different constructed cross, and with a much softer grade of pencil than the 
other' crosses, but is similar to the cross in front of the name of Robert E. 
Crowe, and in my opinion these two crosses must have been put in by a different 
hand, using a different pencil. 

Q. Than the crosses before the other Democrat candidates?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the Socialist-Labor 
Party circle at the top of the ballot made with a very sharp hard pencil. There 
is a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, which is a distinctly different 
kind of a cross and is made with a soft broad pointed pencil, and in my opinion 
the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different hand 
than the cross in the party circle at the top of this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 3 has a cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot and has five crosses before the candidates’ names 
in the Democrat column, and one before a candidate’s name in the Republican 
column—that of Andrew Russell. 

In my opinion all of these crosses in the body of this ballot were made by 
a different hand that the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4.—A. Ballot No. 4 has a cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot and has two crosses before candidates’ names 
in the Democrat column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

.In my opinion, these two crosses m the Democrat-column were made by a 
different hand and a different pencil than the hand or pencil that made the 
cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 5 has a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot and three crosses before candidates’ names 
in the Democrat column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz. 

In my opinion the three crosses in the Democrat column were made by a 
different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top of the ballot. 






PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


97 


Q. Describe ballot No. G.—A. Ballot No. G lias a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot and four crosses before candidates’ names 
in the Democrat column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion each of these crosses in the Democrat column were made by a 
different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top of the ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 7.—A. Ballot No. 7 has a cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot, and originally had a cross before every candi¬ 
date’s name in the Republican Party column, except the name Edward Walz. 
There was originally a cross before the name Dan Parrillo, which has been 
erased, and also a cross before the name Ben H. Sulir, which has been erased. 
There are five crosses in the Democrat column before candidates’ names, one 
of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion these live crosses in the Democrat column were made by a 
different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top of the ballot and the other crosses mentioned in the Republican 
column. 

Q. These seven ballots that you have just described, Mr. Rounds, are all 
men’s ballots, are they not?—A. They are all men’s ballots; yes, sir. 

Q. Now, describe ballot No. 8.—A. Ballot No. 8 is a woman’s ballot and 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and five 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Democrat column, one of which is before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz and two other crosses were made by- 

Q. Which are the two crosses you refer to—that is, before what names do 
they appear?—A. The one before Walter J. LaBuy and the one before the name 
Stanley Kufiewski—(witness continuing answer)—were made by one and the 
same hand, and that the cross in front of the names Joseph Petlak and Joseph 
A. Trandel and the cross made in the Republican Party circle at the top of 
the ballot were made by the same hand, but by a different hand than the hand 
that made the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. These characteristics that you have described are all apparent to the 
naked eye, are they not, Mr. Rounds?—A. They are. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that 
ballots No. 3 to No. 8, inclusive, should be counted as contestant, Dan Parrillo, 
and not counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
said ballots should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and not 
for the contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

Mr. Brouillet. As to Ballots No. 1 and No. 2, it is the contention of the con¬ 
testant, Dan Parrillo, that these ballots should not be counted for either party 
to this contest. 

Mr. Asay. Contestee, Stanley H. Kunz, churns that the same should be 
counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. This refers to ballot No. 1 and 
ballot No. 2. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that the witness pins these ballots to¬ 
gether with a slip of paper describing them as 8 ballots, 7 men’s and 1 woman’s 
ballots. 

Also let the record show that in accordance with the procedure heretofore 
obtaining the said 8 ballots are to be sealed up in an envelope, and that envelope 
in turn sealed up in the ballot box, and the said ballots are to be not counted 
for either party, but are to be retained for the further inspection of the con¬ 
gressional committee, if necessary, or for use by the contestee, should he deem 
it necessary. 

At the hour of 1.15 o’clock p. m. same day. May 10, 1921. the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties present as heretofore stated. 


TWENTY-FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the twenty-first precinct of the sixteenth ward as made by the board of 



98 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


election commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by 


the various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 150 

Women_ 93 

Total_ 243 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 43 

Women__I- 15 

Totall_ 58 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 4 

Women_ 4 

Total_:_ 8 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 5 

Women___._ 0 

Total_ 5 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_«- 202 

Women_ 112 

Grand total---,_ 314 


Seven men’s and 1 woman’s ballot challenged by contestant, not counted for 
either party, to be sealed in an envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 11, 
1921.) 

May 11, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 11, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet 
(representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William .C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

second precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, that in response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners have 
produced a ballot box, which is marked the twenty-second precinct, of the six¬ 
teenth ward. This box has the usual printed certificate on the cover, and with 
the following in ink : 

“ 22 ,” before the word “ precinct,” and “ 16,” before the word “ ward.” 


Democratic: 

Men-123 

Women_—___ 67 

Republican: 

Men_ 92 

Women_ 41 

Socialist: 

Men_ 8 

Women_r._ 1 


There are three names on the places provided for the signatures of the judges 
of election. The box also has on the end, in pencil, the figures “ 22,” a line, 
and “ 16.” There is no rope or other fastening about the box, and it is not 
sealed in any way. There are some papers visible between the upper and lower 





































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


99 


part of the box, which appear to be ballots, to which access could be had without 
breaking any seals or untying any fastenings. 

llie poll book has the usual printed certificate on the front and the following 
in ink: 


“ 22 , ’ before the word “ precinct,” and “ 16,” before the word “ ward,’ 
pencil, of the words: 


and in 


Number of men voters_232 

Number of women voters_ 112 


Total_ 344 

It contains the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate 
reciting that the election was held in the twenty-second precinct of the sixteenth 
ward, on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of Frank Janos, 1321 
North Ashland Avenue, and is signed by the names of three persons in blanks 
provided for signatures of judges of election, and by two persons in the blanks 
provided for the signatures of the clerks of election, and an inspection of the 
poll book shows that there are inscribed therein the names of 344 persons as 
having voted at the said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein counted, 
the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon, at the hour of 10.45 a. m. same day, May 11, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinabove stated:) 


TWENTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties that in response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners have 
produced a ballot box which is marked the twenty-third precinct of the sixteenth 
ward, the box containing the following words and figures: “Twenty-third pre¬ 
cinct of the sixteenth ward.” 

Men’s ballots under the head of the Socialist Party, 273; women, 143; signed 
by three names in the blanks provided for the signatures of the judges ofi 
election. 

The ballot box is tied with a rope; the flaps are not sealed. The rope is not 
sealed. 

The poll book on the cover thereof recites that it is the poll book of the twenty- 
third precinct of the sixteenth ward, and contains the words and figures: 

Number of men voters_273 

Number of women voters_143 


Total_416 

It contains the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate recit¬ 
ing that the election was held in the twenty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward 

on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of-, 1550 Blanchard 

Street, and is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for 
the signatures of the judges of election and by two persons in the blanks pro¬ 
vided for the signatures of the clerks of election, and an inspection of the poll 
book shows that there are inscribed therein the names of 416 persons as having 
voted at the said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, as you have done 
in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. in., same day, May 11, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had, the same parties being present as hereinabove stated: 

TWENTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows: 

Q. Your name is Howard A. Rounds?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. l r ou are the same Howard A. Rounds who has previously testified on behalf 
of the contestant in this election contest?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you examined the challenged ballots in the twenty-second precinct of 
the sixteenth ward, Mr. Rounds?—A. I have. 












100 


PARRILLO VS, KUNZ. 


Q. You have found one ballot that you wish to describe in the record?—A. I 
have. 

Q. Please describe that ballot in the record?—A. It is a man’s ballot, having 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and two crosses in 
the Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion these two crosses in the Democratic column were made by a 
different hand and a different pen than the hand and pen that made the cross 
in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Brouillet. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. A say : 

Q. It is apparent from an inspection by the naked eye, is it, Mr. Rounds?— 
A. It is. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that this 
ballot should be counted for the contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is the contention of the contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, that the ballot should be counted for the contestee, Stan¬ 
ley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that, in accordance with our usual pro¬ 
cedure, this ballot will be sealed in an envelope, and the envelope will, in turn, 
be sealed and placed in the ballot box, which will be sealed and held to await 
the action, if it so desires, of the congressional committee, or for further action 
by the contestee, if necessary. 

At the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m., same day, May 11, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinabove stated: 

TWENTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is Stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount: 
of the twenty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board of 
election commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the 
various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 


Men_167 

Women_ 97 

Total_^_264 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 


Men_ 50 

Women_ 11 


Total___ 61 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 7 

Women_ 4 


Total_ 11 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 5 

Women_'_ 1 


Total_ 6 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_229 

Women_113 


Grand total_342 

One man’s ballot challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, will 
be sealed in envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day. 
May 11, 1921.) 

































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 101 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 11 , 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Broouil- 
let (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant; Mr. Will.am 
C. Asay on behalf of the contestee. 

TWENTY-FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will resume pursuant to adjournment here¬ 
tofore taken. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties that in response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners have 
produced a ballot box which is marked the twenty-fourth precinct of the six¬ 
teenth ward, and that there is the usual printed certificate on the top of the 
box with the following in ink: The figures 24 before the word precinct and the 
figures 16 before the word ward. 

After the word Democratic men’s are the figures 185, and after the words 
Democratic women’s are the figures 110. 

After the words Republican men’s are the figures 28 and after the words 
Republican women’s are the figures 27.* 

After the words Socialist men’s is the figure 4, nothing after the words So¬ 
cialist women’s. 

It appears to be signed by two persons in the places provided for the signa¬ 
tures of the judges of election. 

The box has on the end .n lead pencil, “ 24,” a line under that, and under the 
line are the figures “ 16.” 

The box is apparently packed with papers so that the top thereof extends 
only about 1 inch over the upper part of the bottom of the box. One corner is 
torn open so that some papers, apparently ballots, are visible. There is a rope 
around the box two ways, which has seal.ng wax on one of the knots, another 
knot having no sealing wax on it, and the rope is so loosely tied that the same 
may be slipped off of the box without disturbing any seals. The flaps of the 
telescopic top are not fastened in any way to the bottom, so that access could 
be had to the papers in the box without breaking any seals. 

The poll book has the usual printed certificate on the front cover, with the 
figures, in ink. 24 before the word precinct and 16 before the word ward. The 
figures, partially in ink and partially in pencil, as follows: “Number of men 
voters, 228.” Of these figures “ 22 ” is in ink and “ 8 ” is in pencil, being made 
over, apparently, some former ink number which looks like a “3,” and after 
the number of women voters is 131, the figures 1 and 3 being in ink and the 
figure 1 in lead pencil. Underneath the “ 1 ” is some figure which is, possibly, 
a “ 5,” which has been erased. After the word total are the figures 359. the 
3 and 5 being ink. the 9 being in lead pencil, and underneath the lead pencil 
mark 9 is, in ink, “ 8 .” 

On the inside of the cover is the usual certificate, printed, with the following 
in ink: 24 before the word precinct and 16 before thte word ward, with the 
certificate reciting that the election was held in the twenty-fourth precinct of 
the sixteenth ward, on the second day of November, 1920, at the house of 
Frank E. Knepp, No .1525 West North Avenue, and is signed by the names of 
three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of the judges of elec¬ 
tion and with two names of persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of 
the clerks of election, and an inspection shows that there are inscribed in the 
poll book the names and addresses of 359 persons. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, the same as you 
have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., 
May 12, 1921.) 

May 12, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. in., May 12, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouil¬ 
let (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Par- 
rillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 


102 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


TWENTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you are the same Howard A. Rounds that has been testifying 
as a witness on behalf of the contestant in this contest?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you if you have examined the challenged ballots in the twenty- 
third precinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. And have you come to any conclusion or opinion in regard to the same?— 
A. I have. 

Q. How many groups have you arranged or assembled them into?—A. Two 
groups. 

Q. The first group consists of how many ballots?—A. Of four ballots. 

Q. Are they numbered from 1 to 4, inclusive?—A. They are numbered from 
1 to 4, inclusive, in the upper right hand corner; yes, sir. 

Q. And they have been numbered in the upper right-hand corner by you?— 
Yes, sir. 

Q. With the numerals from 1 to 4, inclusive?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, will you describe ballot No. 1?—A. Ballot No. 1 is a man’s ballot, 
and does not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot. There 
are two crosses before candidates’ names in the body of the Republican column 
and seven crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column. 

Mr. Asay. Let me interrupt to ask you if one of those crosses in the Demo¬ 
cratic column is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Continue your answer. 

A. (Witness continuing). In my opinion, the two crosses in the Republican 
column, and the cross before the name James Hamilton Lewis, and the cross 
before rhe name S. E. Schneider, were made by one and the same hand, and 
that the cross before the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz,” and four other crosses 
in the Democratic column below the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz,” were made 
by one and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made the 
first-mentioned crosses on this ballot. 

Mr. Asay : 

Q. Let me ask you. You base the opinion of their being in a different hand 
upon the proposition of being different ink, or different handwriting, do you 
not ? 

A. On the proposition of it being a different ink and a stronger, bolder 
stroke. 

Mr. Brouillet. Contestant, Dan Parrillo, contends that ballot No. 1, of 
Group No. 1, should be counted as a blank, and not counted for either party 
to this contest. 

Mr. Asay. Contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims that this ballot should be 
counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1. 

A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1 has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the 
top-of the ballot, and also a cross in the Democratic Party circle at the top of 
the ballot. There are six crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic 
column, one of which is before the name, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, the same hand and the same pen made all the crosses in the 
Democratic column, including the one in the Democratic Party circle at the 
top of the ballot, but that the cross in the Socialist Party circle, at the top 
of the ballot, was made by a different hand and a different colored ink. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is contended by the contestant, Dan Parillo, that this bal¬ 
lot, being ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1, should be counted for Stockbridge, the 
Socialist candidate for Congress, and not counted for the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
this ballot should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

By Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and. three 
crosses before candidates names in the Republican column, and five crosses 





PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


103 


before candidates names in the Democratic column, one of which is before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, all of the crosses in the body of this ballot were made by 
a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of this ballot. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that this 
ballot, being ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1, should be counted for the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, and not for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
this ballot should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, as 
marked. 


By Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and six 
crosses before candidates names in the body of the ballot, one of which is 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, each of these crosses in the Democratic column were made by 
a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot, but was made by the same hand that made 
the cross before the name Stanley Henry Ivunz on each of the ballots of 
this group. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that the 
last-named ballot, being ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1, should be counted for 
the contestant. Dan Parrillo, and not for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
this ballot should be counted as marked, for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

By Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. How many ballots does the second group consist of?—A. Six ballots. 

Q. Have you marked them from 1 to 6, inclusive?—A. I have. 

Q. With numerals, in the upper right hand corner?—A. I have. 

Q. Will you describe ballot No. 1 in Group No. 2?—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group 
No. 2 has a cross in the Cooperative Party of America circle, at the top of the 
ballot. There is a cross in the square before the name Len Small, also before 
the name Frank S. Righeimer, also before the name Robert E. Crowe, and in the 
Democratic column before the names Stanley Henry Kunz and Joseph Petlak. 

In my opinion, this ballot has been short penciled by two different people, the 
crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and Len Small being made by 
one hand and the crosses before the names Frank S. Righeimer, Robert E. Crowe, 
and Joseph Petlak made by another hand. 


By Mr. Asay : 

Q. How about the cross in the circle?—A. Both of these sets of crosses being 
made by a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the party circle 
at the top of the ballot. 

Q. Just calling your attention to this fact: The Cooperative Party of America 
has but one candidate on the entire ballot, has it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that this 
ballet, being ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2, should not be counted for the office 
of Congress for anybody. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee that it should be counted for 
contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. as marked. 


By Mr. Brouillet : 

O. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2 does 
not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot, but has one cross 
before the name William A. Lewis, an elector on the Farmer-Labor ticket. 

There is a cross before before the name Len Small, Frank S. Righeimer, Rob¬ 
ert E. Crowe, Stanley Henry Kunz. and Joseph Petlak. 

This ballot has been inspected by me as corroborative evidence, but should be 

counted for the constestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. , T o i „ 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot >o. 3 of Group No. 2 has 
a cross in the Democratic Party circle at the top of the ballot; it has two crosses 
before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, and three crosses be.ore 

candidates’ names in the Republican column. . 

In mv opinion. the cresses in the Republican column were made by a different 
hand than the hand that made the crosses in the Democratic column, and that. 


104 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


both of these hands were a different hand than the hand that made the cross 
in the party circle at the top of the ballot, and that the cross in front of the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by the same hand that made the cross 
before the name Frank S. Righeimer and Robert E. Crowe on ballot No. 1 of 
Group No. 2. and that the hand that made the cross before the name Leu Small 
in the Republican column also made the cross before the name Len Small in 
ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2. 

Mr. Beouillet. Let the record show that ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2, it 
is claimed by the expert, has been tampered with, but inasmuch as there is a 
cross in the Democratic circle and one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, 
and the witness is unable to say which cross, if either, was countersigned or 
short-penciled, the ballot should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, and is referred to here simply as evidence. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2 
has a cross in the Harding-Coolidge Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot, has a cross before the name Len Small in the Republican column, has a 
cross before the name Frank S. Righeimer in the Republican column, and has 
a cross before the name Robert E. Crowe in the Republican column, and crosses 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and Joseph Petlak in the Democratic 
column. 

In my opinion the same thing has been done on this ballot, being ballot No. 4 
of Group No. 2, that was done on ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2, namely, that two 
different people short-penciled this ballot. 

In my opinion the cross in the party circle at the top of this ballot was made 
by a different hand than any other cross on the ballot. 

Mr. Beouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that this 
ballot, being ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2, should be counted as a blank and 
not for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
this ballot should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, as marked. 

By Mr. Beouillet : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 5 of Group No. 2 has 
a cross in the Harding-Coolidge Party circle at the top of the ballot; it has two 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Republican column and two crosses 
before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, including one before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion the same thing happened here that happened on the ballots 
previously mentioned, namely, that some one marked these crosses with a 
different hand and a different pen than the cross in the party circle at the top 
of this ballot. 

Mr. Beouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that this 
ballot, namely, ballot No. 5 of Group No. 2, should be counted as a blank and 
for no candidate for Congress. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
the ballot should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

By Mr. Beouillet : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 6 in Group No. 2—A. Ballot No. 6 in Group No. 2 
does not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot. It has 
a cross before each Democratic elector and numerous crosses throughout the 
Democratic and Republican columns, including a cross before the name Stan¬ 
ley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion all of the crosses on this ballot down to the heading, “ For 
Representatives of Congress,” were made by the same hand and the same ink; 
that from there down, on the Democratic column, including the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, each of the crosses, including one in the -Republican column, 
were made by one and the same hand, but a different hand than the hand 
that made the crosses above the heading, “ For Representatives of Congress.” 

Mr. Brouillet. Contestant, Dan Parrillo, contends that this ballot, being 
ballot No. 6 of Group No. 2 should not be counted for either party, it being 
a blank. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
this ballot should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, as 
marked. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


105 


Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, have you pinned to each of these groups, namely, 
Group No. 1 and Group No. 2, a memorandum on a piece of paper, in pencil, 
stating the number of ballots that each group now contains?—A. I have. 

Q. And have you numbered them Groups 1 and 2, inclusive ?—A. I have. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Beouillet. In accordance with the procedure heretofore had in this 
contest, the 4 ballots of Group No. 1 and the 4 ballots remaining in Group No. 
2 will be sealed in an envelope, and the envelope in turn will be sealed up in 
the ballot box in this precinct and held subject to the order or action of the 
congressional committee, should they so desire, as well as the further action, 
or inspection, or proof by the contestee, should he so desire. 

At the hour of 11.15 o’clock, same day, May 12, 1021, the following proceedings 
were had, the same parties being present as hereinabove stated: 

TWENTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Beouillet. It is stipulated by and between the parties, through their at¬ 
torneys, that the recount of the ballots of the twenty-third precinct of the six¬ 
teenth ward shows the following votes should be credited to each party in this 
contest: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_1___223 

Women___120 


Total_343 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 33 

Women_ 14 


Total_ 47 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 5 

Women_ 5 


Total 


10 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 


Men_ 4 

W omen_ 4 

Total_ 8 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_265 

Women_143 


Grand total_408 

Eight ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be 
sealed in an envelope and sealed in the ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, 
May 12 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 12, 1921, pursuant to ad¬ 
journment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on be¬ 
half of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

TWENTY-FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 






























106 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Mr. Brouillet. It is stipulated by and between the parties of this contest, 
through their attorneys, that the recount of the ballots of the twenty-fourth 
precinct of the sixteenth ward shows the following votes should be credited to 
each party in this contest: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 167 

Women_ 99 


Total_ 266 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 33 

W omen_ 26 


Total_-x_ 59 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 11 

Women__ 6 


Total_;_ 17 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 4 

Women_ 0 


Total_ 4 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 215 

Women__ 131 


Grand total_ 346 


At the hour of 1.45 o’clock p. m., same day, May 12, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinabove stated. 

TWENTY-FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. In response to the subpoena the board of election commissioners 
have produced the ballot box of the twenty-fifth precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

It appears from an inspection of the top of the cover that it contains the figures 
“ 87 ” before the words “ Democratic, men’s,” and the figures “ 50 ” before the 
words “ Democratic, women.” 

Before the words “ Republican, men,” are the figures “ 105.” Before the words 
“Republican, women,” are the figures “36.” 

Before the words “ Socialist, men,” is the figure “ 6,” nothing appearing before 
the words “ Socialist, women.” 

It is signed apparently by the names of three persons in the blanks provided 
for the signatures of the judges of election. The flaps are unsealed, and it is 
bound together by a rope both ways around the box, and the same is not sealed. 

The poll book purports to be the poll book of the twenty-fifth precinct of the 
sixteenth ward, and in the blanks provided therefor shows the number of men 
voters as 223, the number of women voters as 92. and the total as 315. 

On the inside of the cover is the usual printed certificate, which recites that the 
election was held in the twenty-fifth precinct of the sixteenth ward on the 2d day 
of November, A. D. 1920, at the house of Vincent Wolenda, 1455 North Carolina 
Street, and is signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures 
of judges of election, and by two persons in the blanks provided for the signa¬ 
tures of the clerks of election. 

The poll book shows the names and addresses of 315 persons as having voted at 
the last election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2.45 o’clock p. m., same day, May 12, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had, the same counsel being present as before, to wit: Mr. 


« 


v 

































PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


107 


Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing 
Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. 
Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kune. 

TWENTY-FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated that the recount of 
the ballots cast in the twenty-fifth precinct of the sixteenth ward shows the 


uncontested vote to be recorded as follows: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men__ 112 

Women_ 52 

Total_ 1 _ 164 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men- 98 

Women_ 37 

Total_ *_ _ 135 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 7 

Women_ 3 

Total_ 10 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 6 

Women_ 0 

Total- 0 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men___ 223 

Women_ 92 


W. '. 

Grand total 


315 


At the hour of 3 o’clock p. m., same day, May 12, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had, the same counsel being present as hereinabove stated: 


twenty-sixth precinct of the sixteenth ward. 


Mr. Brouillet. In response to a subpoena the board of election commissioners 
present the ballot box of the twenty-sixth precinct of the sixteenth ward, which 
appears to be sealed on both ends, at the flaps, wrapped around with string, 
two ways, and sealed, bearing marks on the outside. “ 2&-16,” and opposite the 
blank provided for the number of candidates’ ballots: u Democratitc, 159, 
signed by three judges of election, two of whom signed in the proper blank 
and one on a straight line underneath the blank. # . 

The poll book, on the cover, shows, “ Twenty-sixth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward. Number of men voters, 258; number of women voters, 99; total, 357.” 

The inside ever of the poll book has the certificate which shows an elec¬ 
tion held in the twenty-fifth precinct of the sixteenth ward on the 2d of No¬ 
vember, 1920, at the house of Andrew Kates John, 1803 West North Avenue, 
si ’■ned by three persons in the blank provided for the signatures of judges of 
election, and by two persons in blanks provided for the signatures of clerks 

of election. „ 

Inspection of the poll book discloses that there are 357 names of voters hav¬ 
ing voted at said election. Now open the ballot box. .. , 

The caller may now open the ballot box and proceed to count the ballots 

found therein. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) _ . OA , ' _ 

(Whereupon an adjournment was taken to the hour of 9.30 o clock a. m. the 
following day, May 13, 1921.) 






























108 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


May 13, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 13, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on 
behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

TWENTY-SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to this 
contest, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena 
duces tecum the board of election commissioners have produced a ballot box, 
which is tied with a number of ropes on the outside, going both ways, and the 
rope is sealed with sealing wax, and apparently the seals are not disturbed. 
There is also a large, heavy piece of pasteboard wrapped around and an ap¬ 
parent break in the cover of the box, which piece of pasteboard covers said 
hole, and is wound on the outside with the string before described, of which 
the seals are unbroken. 

Upon removal of the ropes and the pasteboard cover .we find that the box 
itself is unsealed, and we find the break in the box above described which had 
been covered by the pasteboard. On the outside of the box is marked “ 27-16.” 

The poll book presented has the usual printed certificate reciting that it is 
the poll book of the twenty-seventh precinct of the sixteenth ward, and ap¬ 
pears the following words and figures on the outside cover thereof: 


Number of men voters_245 

Number of women voters_ 87 

Total___332 


There is the usual printed certificate on the inside of the cover of the poll 
book, which recites that the election was held in the twenty-seventh precinct of 
the sixteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of James 
Passadis, 1525 Milwaukee Avenue, signed with the names of three judges in 
the spaces provided for such signatures, and the names of two clerks in the 
spaces provided for such signatures, and an inspection of the poll book itself 
shows that there were 332 voters voted at that precinct that day. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, the same as 
you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 9.45 o’clock a. m., same day, May 13, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated: 

TWENTY-SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that in accordance with the procedure 
heretofore had in this contest, and by stipulation of the parties, through their 
respective attorneys, the recount of the twenty-sixth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward made by the board of election commissioners shows that the number of 
ballots to be credited to each of the candidates are as follows: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men__102 

Women___ 40 


Total_ 142 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 125 

Women_ 50 


Total«..._ 175 


Blank votes : 

Men_ 12 

Women _ 7 


Total__ 19 






















PARRILLO YS. KUKZ. 


109 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 20 

Women_ 2 

Total_ 22 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_'_250 

Women_ _ 00 

Grand total_:__358 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., same day, May 13, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated: 

1 WENTY-SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that in the twenty-seventh precinct of 
the sixteenth ward the total vote as shown by the poll book was: 

Number of men voters_245 

Number of women voters_ 87 

On opening the ballot box we find an excess of 2 men’s and 3 women’s ballots, 
neither of which said ballots have any initials of judges on them, but they are 
included in the amount as announced by the tallier as blanks. 

At the hour of 10.45 o’clock a. m., same day, May 13, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had. the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

TWENTY-EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 


Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties to this contest, through their respective attorneys, that in 
response to a subpcena duces tecum the board of election commissioners have 
produced a ballot box which is marked on the outside thereof the figures “28” 
before the word “ precinct ” and the figure “ 16 ” before the word “ ward,” and 
in the proper blanks appear the following: “Number of candidates’ ballots: 
Democratic, men’s, 255; women’s, 140.” 

That the words “ Candidate ballots,” appear after each of the aforesaid 
figures in ink. Republican, men’s, 255 judges’ ballots; women’s, 140 judges’ 
ballots; men’s, 255 proposition ballots; women’s, 140 proposition ballots. 

It is signed by the names of three individuals in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of judges of election, and also by Charles Krueger. Both flaps on 
the ballot box are gummed and then sealed with sealing wax, and the box is 
bound together with rope going both ways and is sealed with sealing wax. 

The poll book of the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward shows, in 
the blanks provided therefor: 

Number of men voters-256 

Number of women voters- 139 

Total- 395 

On the inside of the cover is the usual printed certificate which recites that it 
is the poll book of an election held in the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth 

ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of-, No. 1264 North 

Lincoln Street, signed by three names in the blanks provided for the signatures 
of judges of election and by one person in the blank provided for the signature 
of clerks of election. An inspection of the poll book shows that there are in¬ 
scribed therein the names of 395 persons as having voted at said election, with¬ 
out any erasures therefrom. 

At the hour of 12.15 o’clock p. m., same day, May 13, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated: 

i 

TWENTY-SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and. being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows: 

Q. Your name is Howard A. Rounds? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. l~ou are the same Howard A. Rounds who has been testifying as a witness 
for the contestant in this contest, are you?—A. I am. 



















110 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


Q. Have you examined the ballots challenged by the contestant in the twenty- 
seventh precinct of the sixteenth ward ?—A. I have. 

Q. Have you applied the same methods of examination to this precinct that 
you have applied to your examination of challenged ballots in prior precincts?— 
A. I have. 

Q. And have you divided these ballots into groups?—A. I have. 

Q. And how many groups have you divided or assembled them into?—A. 
Five groups. 

Q. How many ballots does the first group consist of?—A. Six ballots. 

Q. How many ballots does the second group consist of?—A. Six ballots. 

Q. How many ballots does the third group consist of?—A. Nine ballots. 

Q. How many ballots does the fourth group consist of?—A. Six ballots. 

Q. How many ballots does the fifth group consist of?—A. Four ballots. 

Q. And have you numbered each one of the ballots in the various groups 
from No. 1 to the total number?—A. I have. 

Q. In the upper right-hand corner of the ballot?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And have you attached to each of the several groups, by pinning the same 
thereon, a memorandum of each group?—A. I have. 

Q. Numbered group No. 1, group No. 2*, group No. 3, group No. 4, and group 
No. 5, inclusive?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Describe the ballots in group No. 1.—A. Group No. 1 consists of one 
woman’s ballot and five men’s ballots. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1 of group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 1 of group No. 1 is 
a woman’s ballot, which originally had a cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top, which has been erased. There is a cross in the square in front 
of every candidate’s name in the Republican column, except two, that of the 
Len Small and Fred E. Sterling, including a cross in front of the name Dan 
Parrillo. There are six crosses in the square before candidates’ names in the 
Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 
In my opinion, the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz is in a different 
hand than the hand that made all of the crosses in the Republican column, in¬ 
cluding the one before the name Dan Parrillo. 

Q. Let me interrupt you to ask about the crosses remaining in the Democratic 
column?—A. Three of the woman crosses in the Democratic column were made 
by the voter, namely- 

Q. Were made by the same person, you mean?—A. Yes; were made by the 
same person who made the crosses in the Republican column, namely, the cross 
before Lewis, Williams, Rosenberg; the crosses before the names Michael 
L. Igoe, and Francis X. Busch, being made by the same hand that made the 
cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 2 of group No. 1 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top and is in a man’s ballot. 
There is a cross in front of each elector’s name in the Republican column, 
and about half of the candidates, in equal proportions, in the Democratic and 
Republican columns, there being a cross in front of the name Dan Parrillo, 
which cross, in my opinion, was made by the same hand that made all of the 
other crosses on the ballot, with the exception of the cross which appears in 
front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz and which was made, in my opinion, 
by a different hand and a different pencil, and by the same hand that made 
the cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 1 of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 3 of group No. 1 is 
a man’s ballot and it has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of 
the ballot. It has four crosses in the square before candidates’ names in the 
Democratic column, one of these being before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, the cross in front of the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz,” “ Francis 
X. Busch,” and “ Michel L. Igoe ” were made by the same hand and the same 
pencil. The cross in front of the name “ James Hamilton Lewis,” in my opinion, 
was made by the same hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top of this ballot. 

In my opinion, the cross in front of the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz ” was 
made by the same hand that made the cross in front of the name “ Stanley 
Henry Kunz ” in each of the previous ballots of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 4 of group No. 1 is 
a man’s ballot, and has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of tlje 
ballot, and has a cross before the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz.” 

In my opinion, the cross before the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz ” was made by 
a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party 





PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Ill 


circle at the top of this ballot, but by tlie same hand that made the crosss before 
the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz ” in each of tlie previous ballots of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5 of group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 5 of group No. 1 is a 
man’s ballot and has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top. It has 
several crosses before the names of candidates in the Democratic column, one 
of them being before the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz.” 

In my opinion, the cross before the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz ” was made 
by a different hand than tlie hand that made the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot and was made by the same hand that made the 
cross in front of the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz ” on each of the previous 
ballots of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 6 of group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 6 or group No. 1 
is a man’s ballot; it has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot, and has several crosses in the Democratic column, one of which is before 
the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz.” 

In my opinion, each of these crosses in the body of this ballot was made by 
a different hand and a different pencil than the hand that made the cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. The descriptions that you have given of the markings of the various bal¬ 
lots, in group No. 1, are appreciable by the use of the naked eye, without the 
aid of the microscope, are they?—A. They are. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that each 
of these six ballots, of group No. 1 should be counted for the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo, and not counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. that said 
ballots should be counted for said contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and not for 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Describe the ballots of group No. 2.—A. Group No. 2 consists of G men’s 
ballots. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1 of group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 1 of group No. 2 
does not have any cross in the party circles at the top of the ballot. It has live 
crosses in the squares before candidates’ names in the Republican column and 
it has two crosses in the squares before candidates’ names in the Democratic 
column, one of these being before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, the two crosses in the Democratic column were made by one 
and the same hand, and that each of the crosses in the Republican column were 
made by one and the same hand, but by a different hand than the hand that 
made the crosses in the Democratic column. In my opinion, these crosses in 
the Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, 
were made by the same hand and same pencil that made the crosses before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz in the first 5 ballots of Group No. 1. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2 has 
no cross in the party circles at the top of the ballot. It has a cross before each 
Democratic elector, and has three crosses before candidates’ names in the body 
of the ballot, namely, Stanley Henry Kunz, Kane, and Busch. 

In my opinion, these last three crosses, one of which is before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz, was made by one and the same hand, but a different 
hand than the hand that made each of the other crosses upon this ballot, and 
in my opinion, these three crosses, one of which is before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, were made by the same hand that made the cross before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz, on ballot No. 1 of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2 

does not have any crosses in the party circles at the top of the ballot. It has 

one cross before an elector’s name, in the Republican, column, and one other 
cross in the Republican column, that before the name Edward E. Miller. There 
are three crosses in the Democratic column, one of which is before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion, all of the crosses on this ballot with the 
exception of the one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by one and 
the same hand, and that the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, was 
made by the same hand that made the crosses before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz on ballots 3 and 2 of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. % —A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2 

does not have any cross in the party circles at the top of the ballot. It has 


96674—22-8 



112 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 



four crosses before candidates’ names in the Republican column, and a cross 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz and two crosses before candidates’ 
names in tlie Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, these two crosses in the Democratic column were made by one 
and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand that made each of 
the other crosses upon this ballot, but by the same hand that made the crosses 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the previous ballots of this 
group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 5 of Group No. 2 
does not have any crosses in any party circles at the top of the ballot. It 
has numerous crosses before, candidates’ names in the Republican column, and 
two crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which 
is before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, all of the crosses on this ballot, with the exception of the 
one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, was made by one and the same 
hand; that the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunzi was made by the 
same hand which made the crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, 
on each of the previous ballots of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 6 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 6 of Group No. 2 
has no crosses in the party circles at the top of the ballot, but has one cross, 
before the name George R. Campbell, an elector in the Republican column, and 
has two crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of 
which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, the two crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic 
column were made by a different hand and a different pencil than the hand 
and the pencil that made the cross in front of the name George R. Campbell, 
in the Republican column, but by the same hand and the same pencil that 
made the crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of e previous 
ballots of this group. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of v the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that 
each of these ballots in Group No. 2 should not be counted by either party to 
this contest. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
these ballots in Group No. 2 should be counted for the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

By Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Describe the ballots in Group No. 3.—A. Group No. 3 consists of 9 
women’s ballots. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 3 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and a cross 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion these two crosses were 
made by a different hand and a different pencil. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No 2 of Group No. 3 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and has three 
crosses before candidates name in the Democratic column, one of which is 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the three crosses before 
Stanley Henry Kunz were made by a different hand and a different pencil 
than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top 
of this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 3 lias 

a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. It has three 

crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which 
is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion each of these three 
crosses in the Democratic column were made by a different hand and a differ¬ 
ent pencil than the hand and pencil that made the cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of this ballot, but by the same hand and the same 
pencil that made e cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 2 
of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 3 has 

a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. It has three 

crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion each of these three 
crosses in the Democratic column were made by one and the same hand, it 
being a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican 






PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


113 


Party circle at the top of this ballot, but by the same hand that made the 
crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballots No. 2 and 3 of this 
group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 5 of Group No. 3 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. It has 
three crosses before candidates' names in the Democratic column, one of 
which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion these three 
crosses in the Democratic column were made by one and the same hand, it 
being a different hand than the hand that made the .cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot, but by the same hand that made the 
crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballots Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of 
this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 6 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 6 of Group No. 3 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. It has 
three crosses in the Democratic column, one of which is before the name of 
Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion these three crosses in the Deemocratic 
column were made by one and the same hand, it being a different hand than 
the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of this 
ballot but by the same hand that made the crosses before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz on ballots Nos. 2, 3. 4, and 5 of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 7 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 7 of Group No. 3 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. It has 
three crosses before candidates name in the Democratic column, one of which 
is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, In my opinion the three crosses 
in the Deemocratic column were made by one and the same hand, it being a 
different hand than the hand that made the crosses in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of this ballot and the same hand that made the crosses be- 
for the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballots 2, 3, 4, 5, and G of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 8 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. S of Group No. 3 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and it has 
three crosses in the Democratic column before candidates names, one of which 
is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion each of the three 
crosses in the Deemocratic column were made by one and the same hand, 
it being a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot, but by the same hand that made the 
crosses in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballots 2, 3, 4, 5, G, and 
7 of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 9 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 9 of Group No. 3 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. It has three 
crosses in the Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz. In my opinion the three crosses in the Democratic column were 
made by one and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand that 
made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, but 
by the same hand that made the crosses in front of the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz on each of the previous ballots of this group except ballot No. 1. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. The description that you have given of these ballots in this Group No. 3 
are patent to the naked eye, are they not?—A. They are. 

Q. Without the use of the microscope?—A. They are. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that each 
of the nine b&llots of this group should be counted for the contestannt, Dan 
Parrillo, but not for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
they should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and not for the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Describe the ballots in Group No. 4.—A. Group No. 4 consists of G woman’s 
ballots. 

* Q. Describe ballot No. 1, of Group No. 4.—A. Ballot No. 1, of Group No. 4, 
does not have any crosses in the party circles at the top of the ballot. There 
is a cross before the name Eugene V. Debs, under the caption, Socialist, which 
cross, in my opinion, is similar to the cross before the name George Koop, 
in the Socialist column, and a cross before the name of Michael Rosenberg, in 
the Democratic column. There are three other crosses on this ballot, in the 
Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 


114 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


In my opinion, these three crosses in the Democratic column were made by 
one and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made the 
other crosses on this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2, of Group No. 4—A. Ballot No. 2, of Group No. 4, 
has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot, and has a cross 
before every candidate’s name in the Socialist column, including that of Henry 
C. Stockbridge, Representative for Congress. 

There are three crosses in the Democratic column, one of which is before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, the three crosses in the Democratic column were made by one 
and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made all of ttfie 
other crosses upon this ballot, but by the same hand that made the cross 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, on ballot No. 1 of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3, of Group No. 4.—A. Ballot number 3, of Group No. 
4, has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot; has a cross 
before each elector’s name, in the Socialist column, and two other crosses before 
candidates’ names, in the Socialist column. 

There are three crosses before Democratic candidates’ names, one of which is 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, these three crosses in the Democratic column were made by 
one and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made the 
other crosses in this group, but by the same hand that made the crosses in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the previous ballots of this 
group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4, of Group No. 4.—A. Ballot No. 4, of Group No. 4, 
has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot, and three 
crosses in the Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, each of the three crosses in the Democratic column was 
made by one and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand that 
made the cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot, but by the same hand 
that made the cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the 
previous ballots of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5, of Group No. 4.—A. Ballot No. 5, of Group No. 4, 
has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot; it had 
crosses before about half of the electors’ names in the Socialist column, and it 
has three crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of 
which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, the three crosses in the Democratic column were made by one 
and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made the other 
crosses upon this ballot, but by the same hand that made the cross before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the previous ballots of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 6, of Group No. 4.—A. Ballot No. 6, of Group No. 4, 
has a cross in the Socialist Party circle, at the top of the ballot, and has three 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, these three crosses in the Democratic column were made by 
one and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand that made the 
crosses in the party circle at the top of this ballot, but the same hand that made 
the crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, on each of the previous ballots 
of this group. 

Mr. Brouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that these 
six ballots of Group No. 4 should not be counted for either party to this contest. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that 
these ballots should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Describe the ballots in Group No. 5.—A. Group No. 5 consists of three 
men’s ballots and one woman’s ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1, of Group No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 1, of Group No. 5* 
has a cross in the Democratic Party circle, at the top of the ballot; it has a 
cross before every Democratic elector’s name, and a cross before a majority of 
the candidates’ names, in the Democratic column; one being before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz. There are crosses before two candidates’ names, in the 
Republican column; one of which is before the name Dan Parrillo. 

In my opinion all of the crosses on this ballot with the exception of the 
one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz were made by one and the same 





PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


115 


hancl, but that the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz \vas made by 
the same hand and the same pencil that made the crosses on the ballots of 
Group No. 4. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 5 
does not have any cross in the party circles at the top of the ballot. There 
is a cross before every Democratic elector’s name, and there is a cross before 
e\eij candidates name in the body of the ballot under the Socialist column, 
including the name of Henry C. Stockbridge. Each of these crosses are in ink. 

There are three lead-pencil crosses in the body of the Democratic column, 
one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Tn my opinion these three lead-pencil crosses in the Democratic column 
^ere made by one and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand 
that made each of the other crosses on this ballot, but by the same hand that 
made the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 1 of this 
group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 5 
has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot. It has a can¬ 
celed cross in the Socialist Labor Party circle at the top of the ballot; it has 
a cross before about half of the elector’s names in the Socialist column and 
about two-thirds of the candidates in the Socialist column in the body of the 
ballot, one of these crosses being before the name Henry C. Stockbridge. 

There are also three crosses in the Democratic column, one of which is 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion tin 1 three crosses in the Democratic column were made by 


one and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand that made 
each of the other crosses on this ballot, but by the same hand that made the 
crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the previous ballots 
of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 5 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and has 
numerous crosses before candidates’ names in the Socialist column, one of 
which is before the name Henry C. Stockbridge. 

There are three crosses in the Democratic column, one of which is before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion these three crosses in the Democratic column were made by one 
and the same hand, and a different hand than the hand that made each of the 
other crosses on this ballot, but by the same hand that made the crosses before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz on each of the previous ballots of this group. 

Mr. Beouillet. It is the contention of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, that 
ballot No. 1 of Group No. 5 should be counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo, 
and not for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that this ' 
ballot should be counted as a blank vote. 

Mr. Beouillet. It is the contention of contestant, Dan Parrillo, that ballots 
2, 3, and 4 of Group No. 5 should be counted for Stockbridge, the Socialist can¬ 
didate for Congress, and not for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is the contention of contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, that these 
3 ballots should be counted as blank votes. 

Mr. Beouillet. Let the record show that, in accordance with the usual pro¬ 
cedure, these ballots, consisting of the six groups, just enumerated by Mr. 
Rounds, will be sealed up in an envelope, which in turn will be sealed in the 
ballot box, and there kept for use by the congressional committee, should they 
so desire, or for further inspection or use of the contestee, should he so desire. 

Let the record further show that there are some challenged ballots not yet 
examined by the expert, which will be sealed up and not counted for either 
party, and kept until Monday morning at 9.30 o’clock, at which time we will 
resume the hearing. 

At the hour of 1 o’clock p. m., same day, May 13, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated: 


TWENTY-SEVENTH PEECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WAED-EESUMED. 

Mr. Beouillet. In accordance with the procedure heretofore had in this con¬ 
test, and by stipulation of the parties, the recount on the twenty-seventh pre¬ 
cinct of the sixteenth ward by the board of election commissioners shows the 
following number of ballots credited to each of the candidates: 


116 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_117 

Women_ 42 


Total_159 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 80 

Women_ 12 


Total_ 92 

Blank votes: 

Men_,_ 7 

Women_ 10 


Total_ 17 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 29 

Women__ 6 


Total ,_ 35 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_233 

Women_ 70 


Grand total_303 


.Thirty-one ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be 
sealed in envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. m. Monday, May 
16, 1921.) 

May 16. 1921—9.30 a. m. 

At the hour of 9.30 o’clock same day, May 16, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Brouillet (repre¬ 
senting Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. It is stipulated by the parties that the hearing of this contest shall 
be continued until May 17, 1921, at 9.30 a. m., and that this one day’s continuance 
not be deducted from 40 days allowed the contestant in which to put in his 
proofs. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken until May 17, 1921, at the hour 
of 9.30 o’clock a. m.) 

May 17, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 17, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet 
(representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

TWENTY-NINTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the board of election commissioners and the clerk have produced a ballot box 
marked the “ 29th precinct of the 16th ward,” and containing the following: 


Number of men’s ballots_ 251 

Number of women’s balllots_ 112 


Signed by the name of Victor H. Buhrke. No other name is apparent on the 
face of the ballot box. The flaps of the box itself are not sealed or gummed. 
There is a rope hanging loosely around the box. On the side of the ballot box, 
in lead pencil, appear the figures “ 29/16.” 































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


117 


The poll book of the twenty-ninth precinct of the sixteenth ward has the 
usual printed certificate on the inside of the cover, and has the words and 


figures as follows: 

Number of men voters_ 251 

Number of women voters_ 112' 

Total_ 363 


There is the usual printed certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate 
reciting that an election was held in the twenty-ninth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of Augusta Hurdow, 
1429 North Paulina Street, signed with three names in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of judges of election, among the names being that of Victor H. 
Buhrke, and signed with two names in the blanks provided for the names of the 
clerks of election. An inspection of the poll book shows that there are in¬ 
scribed therein the names of 363 persons as having voted at the said election. 

You may now proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein 
contained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m. 
same day, May 17, 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m. same day, May 17, 1921, pursuant to ad¬ 
journment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Air. Hector A. Brouil- 
let (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

TWENTY-NINTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows: 

Q. Your name is Howard A. Rounds?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are the same gentleman who has heretofore testified as an expert in 
this contest?—A. I am. 

Q. I will ask you if you have examined the two objected to or challenged 
ballots in this precinct, Mr. Rounds?—A. I have. 

Q. There are two of them objected to by the contestant, are there?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Will you please describe them by numbering them in the upper right hand 
corner?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you done so?—A. I have. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1, Mr. Rounds?—A. Ballot No. 1 is a man’s ballot, it 
has a cross in the Republican party circle at the top of the ballot, and has a cross 
before every name in the Republican column except Alexander N. Todd and Dan 
Parrillo. 

Q. And what do you find there?—A. In the Democratic column there is a 
cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. The name of Stanley Henry Kunz is opposite the name of Dan Parrillo, is* 
it not?—A. Which is opposite the name of Dan Parillo, yes. 

Q. Go ahead with your description of the ballot?—A. And a cross before the 
name Thomas F. Sullivan and a cross before the name Stanley Ivuflewski. 

Q. And both of the last two names are opposite the names of persons who 
either have no crosses in the squares before the names of the candidates oppo¬ 
site these two names?—-A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And how about the name cf Stanley Ivuflewski; is there a cross in the 
square before the name opposite him?—A. There was and it has been erased. 

Q. Proceed with your description of the ballot?—A. In my opinion, the cross 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz is a different kind of a cross than the 
other crosses in this column. 

Q. How does it compare with the crosses for the other two candidates on the 
Democratic side?—A. It is a different cross than any other cross on the ballot. 

Q. In what respect is it a different cross?—A. It is different in its construc¬ 
tion and different in the pencil used in making the cross. 

Q. Do you mean that it is a sharper pencil or that it is a different lead?— 
A. It seems to be much softer and a coarser pointed pencil. 

O. Will you examine the square in front of the name Dan Parrillo and see 
if there is any evidence of a cross having been there?—A. There never was a 

cross there. 






118 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


Q. Now describe ballot No. 2, please?—A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in tbe Re¬ 
publican Party circle at the top of the ballot and it has six crosses in the 
Democratic Column, and, in my opinion, each of these crosses on this ballot 
were made by one and tbe same hand, except the one in front of tbe name 
Stanley Henry Kunz, which, in my opinion, was made by a different hand and 
by the same hand that made the cross in front of tbe name Stanley Henry Kunz 
on ballot No. 1. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. These are all lead-pencil crosses on both ballots, are they not?—A. They are 
all lead-pencil crosses on both ballots; yes, sir. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is tbe contention of the contestant 
that these two ballots should be counted for the contestant. Dan Parrillo, and 
not for the eontestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. And let the record show that it is the contention of the eontestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, that these two ballots should be counted for the eontestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, as they are marked. 

Mr. Brouillet. These two ballots will be pinned together by Mr. Rounds, and 
identified by a slip of pare on which will be marked No. 1 and the figure 
“ 2 ” before the word “ Republican,” and that these ballots will be sealed in 
an envelope and the envelope will in turn be sealed in the ballot box, and the 
ballot box will also be sealed and returned to the custody of the board of elec¬ 
tion commissioners subject to the use, scrutiny, or inspection of the congres¬ 
sional committee, or for further evidence by the eontestee should lie so desire; 
and that these ballots will net be counted for either party to this contest. 

At the hour of 3.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 17, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Guy C. Grapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (represent-- 
ing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. Wil¬ 
liam C. Asay, on behalf of the eontestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

TWENTY-NINTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the twenty-ninth precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board of elec¬ 
tion commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the 


various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_106 

Women_*- 50 

Total_ 156 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_118 

Women_ 43 

Total_161 

Blank votes: 

Men_—. 5 

W omen_ 6 

Total_ 11 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 21 

Women_ S 

Total- 29 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 250 

Women_107 

Grand total___357 
































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


119 


Two ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be 
sealed in envelope and then sealed in envelope. 

("Whereupon the adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. in., May 18, 
1921.) 

May IS, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May IS, 1921, pursuant adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy G. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. 
Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank I). Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

THIRTIETH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Brouillet. Bet the record show that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum the board of election commissioners have produced a ballot box marked 
the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenh ward, which shows on the ouside, in the 
proper blanks, the following: 


Total men’s ballots_218 

Total women’s ballots_127 


It is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of the judges and clerks of election. 

The box has one side of the flaps gummed and has a cord or rope wrapped 
around it in two different ways, partly sealed. The box also is marked 
“ 30-16 ” on the outside. 

There is also from this precinct a roll of ballots apparently marked “ 30-16,” 
and bound around with a rope. The ballots are simply rolled and have on the 
outside, apparently on the outer ballot thereof, the words, in ink “ thirtieth 
precinct of the sixteenth ward,” and it is signed with three names, apparently 
the names of the judges of said precinct. 

The poll book is marked the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward and 
on the outside has the following; 


Total number of men voters_218 

Total number of women voters_127 

Total_,_345 


On the inside cover of the poll book is the usual printed certificate, the 
certificate reciting that an election was held in the thirtieth precinct of the six¬ 
teenth ward on the second day of November, 1920, at the house of Barney 
Barharski, 1410 North Ashland Avenue, signed with three names in the places 
provided for the signatures of judges of election, and with two names in the 
places provided for the signatures of judges of election, and with two names in 
the places provided for the signatures of the clerks of election, and an inspection 
of the poll book shows that there were the names of 345 voters inscribed therein 
as having voted at said election. There does not seem to be any erasures 
from such list of names. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein, the 
same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 12 o’clock nr., same day, May 18, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (repre¬ 
senting Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

THIRTIETH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: _ ! 








120 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 


Men_152 

Women__ 95 


Total_247 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 46 

Women_ 6 


Total_ 52 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 6 

Women_ 0 

Total___ 6 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_;_ 4 

Women_:_ 0 


Total_ 4 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_,_2CN5 

Women_101 

£ ' _ 

it . 

Grand total_309 


Thirty-one ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for anybody, sealed 
in envelope and then sealed in ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m., 
same day, May 18, 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 18, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, namely. Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on 
behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the 
contestee, Stanley H. Kunz, 

TWENTY-EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, ob¬ 
jects to the ballot, in the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward, on the 
ground that there is a special identification mark on the top of the ballot, and 
no other mark appears in any column signifying that the voter intended to 
vote for any office except by placing a cross in the Democratic Party circle. 
The special identification mark to which the contestant objects is the mark that 
is in the form of a flower, it appearing as though there were about six marks 
in the shape of leaves. It also appears as though there was a “ V ” in the 
center of the flower. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz, objects 
to the statement of counsel for the contestant describing "a ballot, and wifi 
ask the expert to describe it. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that the contestant. Dan Parrillo, by 
his counsel, does not think it is necessary to have the expert describe it,’the 
contestant’s counsel having described it. 

Mr. Asay. The contestee, Stanley H. Kunz, claims that the ballot should be 
counted for contestee, Stanley II. Kunz, for a straight Democratic ballot. 

Also let the record show that, instead of it being in the form of a flower 
as described by counsel for the contestant, Dan Parrillo, it is the contention 
of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz, that the letter “ J,” in heavy ink, is drawn 
and that the letter “ V ” spoken of by counsel for the contestant, Dan Parrillo 
is simply the two extremes of the letter “ J,” and that there are other indistinct 
attempts to make another “ 3 ” on the ballot. 






























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


121 


Mr. Brouillet. On behalf of tlie contestant, Dan Parrillo, I will call Howard 
A. Rounds as a witness, who lias already qualified as an expert in this con¬ 
test. 


HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as follows: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, 1 will show you a ballot in the twenty-eighth precinct of the 
sixteenth ward, and I will ask you to describe the certain distinguishing mark 
which appears at the head of the Democratic column, and I will ask you 
what, in your opinion, that represents?—A. Well, in my opinion, it is difficult 
to tell exactly what they did try to do there. The darkest portion of this 
scroll has taken something the form of the capital letter “ J.” There is across 
‘the center part of this letter “ J,” if it is called a letter “ ,T,” a distinct line 
that starts from the extreme left, going across to the extreme right and back 
across the letter “ J ” again in the form of a “ V,” which letter “ V ” is of 
no material part of what would be the letter “ J.” In addition to that, there 
is a distinct scroll put over the top part of what might be called the letter “ J,” 
that has no distinct form of any letter. It might be compared to a large 
capital “ O.” 

To the right and a little lower than the capital letter “ J,” if it is called such, 
is a very light, indistinct stroke, that is very similar in its shape to the shape of 
the above described letter “ J.” 

There is no letter “ V ” across the center part of it, however. There is some¬ 
thing about the combination of all of these strokes that takes away the letter 
characteristics, and the combination itself of all the strokes together just simply 
make a muddle that might be called anything. All of the strokes are done in 
pen and ink. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, from your examination of this distinguishing mark, which 
appears at the top of the Democratic column, would you say that it is the letter 
“ J” as is contended by counsel for the contestee?—A. One set of marks might 
be considered a “ J.” The “ V ” stroke which is put across that, however, is 
no material part of the strokes that could be considered in the form of a “ J.” 

Q. Well, according to your conception, Mr. Rounds, would you take that 
mark to appear as though if was intended for the letter “ J ”? 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee objects to that question. 

Mr. Brouillet: 

Q. Would you say, taking all the marks into consideration, also the scrolls, 
that the voter that made them intended it to be the letter “ J ”? 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee objects to that question. 

A. My opinion of what was done there, in response to this question, is this, 
that the voter originally based this scroll upon the formation of a “ J.” 

Q. But, in your opinion, he subsequently added some more scrolls and lines; 
is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Which make the distinguishing marks which invalidates the ballot? 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee objects to that question, on 
the ground that the witness has no opinion as to invalidating the ballot. 

Mr. Brouillet. Well, 1 am making that assertion on my own account. 

Mr. Asay. I thought you were putting it in the form of a question. I will 
now ask the witness one or two questions on cross-examination. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, are all the marks constituting these hieroglyphics in the 
Democratic column, outside of the Democratic circle?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They are all outside of the Democratic circle?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And are all those marks made by ink?—A. They are. 

Q. Is there a different character of ink used? 

Mr. Brouillet. He has not qualified as an expert with reference to the 
character of ink, and on behalf of the contestant. I object to the question. 
He is not here to say whether it is ink or pencil. It is just his opinion as- to 
the characteristics of the writings. 

Mr. Asay. Please answer the question now that the gentleman has his 
objection in.—A. In my opinion it is the same ink. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. I just wanted to know what your opinion was. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, objects 
to this ballot being counted for the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


122 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Mr. Asay. And let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
contends that this ballot should be counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, have you examined any challenged ballots in the 2Sth pre¬ 
cinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. I have; yes, sir. 

Q. Have you assembled them into groups?—A. I have; yes, sir. 

Q. Have you made any special identificattion marks in order to distinguish 
the groups in referring to them?—A. I have. 

Q. Describe the identification marks you have made?—A. I have divided 
them into four groups, each separate group is pinned through and through* 
with a pin pinning to the group a piece of paper, on which piece of paper is 
designated No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4, respectively, for the various groups. 
In addition to this there is other memoranda of mine explaining the contents 
of the group, the memoranda being on the paper. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I herewith hand you Group No. 1 for identification, and 
I will ask you if you recognize the ballots in this group as the ballots you 
examined in the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. I do. 

Q. How many ballots have you in Group No. 1?. A. Twenty-one ballots 
in Group No. 1. 

Q. Are these the ballots that have been challenged by the contestant?—A. 
Yes, they are. 

Q. Will you describe the identification marks on the ballots in Group. No. 1? 

Mr. Asay. Pardon me. Do you mean the identification marks or the marks? 

Mr. Brouillet. I mean the marks and crosses on the ballots in Group No. 1. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot; it has 
three crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which 
is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different hand than the hand that 
made all the rest of the crosses on the ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No.. 2 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle, at the top of the ballot; it has 
crosses before about two-thirds of the candidates’ names in the Republican 
column in the body of the ballot, including one before the name Dan Parrillo. 
There are five crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one 
of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion these crosses in the Democratic column were all made by 
one and the same hand, and by a different hand than the hand that made the 
crosses in the Republican column, and that this cross before the, name Stanley 
Henry Kunz was made by the same hand that made the cross before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 1. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot: it has a 
cross before a majority of the candidates’ names in the Republican column, 
except for the Republican electors. There are seven crosses before candi¬ 
dates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz. One of the crosses in the Republican column is before 
the name Dan Parrillo. Each of the crosses on this ballot, with the excep¬ 
tion of the one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made with pen 
lion of the one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, was made with pen 
delible pencil, and in my opinion by a different hand than the hand that made 
any other cross upon the ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and a cross before 
almost all of the candidates’ names in the Republican column, one of these 
crosses being before the name Dan Parrillo. There are five crosses before candi¬ 
dates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz. I am unable to say whether this cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz was made by the same person who made the other crosses on the 
ballot or not, there being two crosses before the names of Representatives for 
Congress on ballot No. 4. 

Q Describe ballot No. 5 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 5 of Group No. 1 
has two crosses before candidates’ names in the Republican column, one of 
which is before the name Dan Parrillo. There is a cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, in the Democratic column. In my opinion this cross before the 









PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


123 


name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different hand than the hand that 
made the other two crosses upon this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. (1 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 6 of Group No. 1 
lias crosses, in lead pencil, before a majority of candidates’ names in the Repub¬ 
lican column. There is no cross in the party circle at the top of this ballot. 
r l here are several crosses in lead pencil before candidates' names in the Demo¬ 
cratic column. There is a cross in ink before the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
and a cross in lead pencil before the name Dan Parrillo. In my opinion the 
cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different hand than 
the hand that made all the other crosses upon this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 7 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 7 of Group No. 1 has 
crosses before all of the candidates’ names in the Socialist column, there being 
no cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot. There are live crosses before 
candidates’ names in the Republican column and one cross before candidates’ 
names in the Democratic column, being that of Stanley Henry Kunz. One of 
the first-mentioned crosses was before the name Henry"c. Stockbridge. In my 
opinion all of the crosses in the Socialist column of this ballot were made by 
the same hand; that each of the crosses in the Republican column and the one 
in the Democratic column was made by one and the same hand, but by a different 
hand than the hand that made the crosses in the Socialist column/ One of the 
crosses in the Socialist column is before the name Henry C. Stockbridge. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 8 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 8 of Group No. 1 
has crosses before every candidates’ name in the Socialist column. There are 
four crosses in the Republican column before the candidates’ names and one 
cross in the Democratic column before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my 
opinion all of the crosses in the Socialist column were made by one and the 
same hand, and that each of the other crosses on this ballot were made by one 
and the same hand, but by a different hand than the hand that made the crosses 
in the Socialist column, but by the same hand that made the crosses in the 
Democratic and Republican columns on ballot No. 7. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 9 to and including ballot No. 21 of Group No. 1.—A. 
ballot No. 9, to and including ballot No. 21 of Group No. 1, are all either marked 
in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot, and all of them have a 
majority, if not all, crosses before the candidates’ names on the Socialist 
ticket, and each and every one of them have a cross before the name Henry C. 
Stockbridge. Representative for Congress on the Socialist ticket. Each and 
every one of these ballots have a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, 
and other crosses in the Republican column. In my opinion each of these crosses 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and certain other crosses in the Republi¬ 
can column, throughout these ballots, were all made by one and the same hand, 
and by a different hand than the hand that made any of the crosses in the 
Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot or any of the crosses in the body 
of the ballot, and by the same hand that made the cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz on the previous mentioned ballots of this group. 

Q. Now. Mr. Rounds, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo, I will ask 
you how many contested ballots you have found in Group No. 1 of the Twenty- 
eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. Twenty-one ballots. 

Mr. Brouillet. On behalf of the contestant. Dan Parrillo, let the record show 
that we object to having these ballots counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, for the reason that it appears from the ballots that the voter voted be¬ 
fore the party circle in the Republican column at the top of the ballot, and that 
after the polls were closed and the ballot box opened, and while the ballots 
were being counted in the polling place, some person or persons, unlawfully 
and wrongfully, marked a cross in front of,candidate for Congress Stanley H. 
Kunz’s name, and that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, contends and claims that 
the first six ballots of Group No. 1 should be counted for contestant, Dan Par¬ 
rillo. Let the record further show that it also appears that the other 15 bal¬ 
lots of Group No. 1 were marked in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the 
ballot, or with a cross before each of the names of the Socialist candidates. 

It also appears from the testimony of Mr. Rounds that the cross before the 
name Stanley H. Kunz is not in the same handwriting as that of the other 
crosses before the names of the Socialist candidates, and that the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, claims and contends that after the polling place was closed and 
the ballots taken from the ballot box and while the ballots were being counted 
in the polling place, that some person or persons unlawfully and wrongfully 


124 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


placed crosses before the name Stanley H. Kunz, and contestant, Dan Parrillo, 
contends that these ballots should not be counted for the contestee, Stanley H. 
Kunz. 

It also appears from one of the ballots of the twenty-eighth precinct of the 
sixteenth ward, namely, ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1, that all the crosses which 
the voter put before all the names of candidates are marked in ink, except the 
cross before the name Stanley H. Kunz, which is marked in pencil, and which 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims and contends was placed there, unlawfully 
and wrongfully, by some person other than the legal voter. 

Let the record further show that ballot No. 21 of Group No. 1, being ballots 
in the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward, shows that all the crosses 
placed before the names of candidates in the Socialist column are in lead pencil, 
with the exception of the cross before the name Stanley H. Kunz, which is in 
ink, and that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims and contends that this ballot 
should not be counted. 

Mr. Asay. As a suggestion here on the part of the contestee, Stanley H. 
Kunz, we wish to object to the form of question of counsel for the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, in that counsel for contestant, in his question, assumes that these 
so-called marks were made after the polls were closed and while the count 
of the ballots was taking place at the polling place, by some person other than 
the legal voter himself. We are willing to stand by the necessary and proper 
deductions from the expert’s testimony, but nothing beyond that. Let me ask 
the witness one or two questions by way of cross-examination. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you have no expert opinion as to when these marks we put 
on these ballots, have you?—A. Not from an expert examination, I can not 
tell; no, sir. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Brouillet. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you have testified that, according to your opinion, ‘the marks 
on these ballots which should he counted for the contestant, Dan Parrillo, 
were made by some other person than the person who made the crosses in the 
Socialist column?—A. I have, with the exception of No. 4. With reference to 
No. 4, I stated when I went over it that I could not state for certain by whom 
that cross was made, the cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that these ballots, in the original count, 
were all counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and that the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, objects to these 15 ballots being counted for the contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, and claims they should be counted for the Socialist can¬ 
didate for Representative in Congress, Henry C. Stockbridge, and deducted 
from the total count of contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, in this precinct, and 
contestant, Dan Parrillo, further claims and contends that the six ballots 
heretofore referred to in Group No. 1 should be counted for contestant, Dan 
Parrillo, candidate for Representative in Congress on the Republican ticket. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, calls 
attention to the fact, that none of these ballots have been counted for anybody 
in the recount. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I will herewith hand you Group No. 2, and I will ask you 
how many ballots are contained in Group No. 2?—A. Six ballots. 

Q. I will ask you to describe and identify the markings on each of the 
ballots in Group No. 2, commencing with ballot No. 1 of this group.—A. Ballot 
No. 1 of Group No. 2 does not ha,ve any cross in the party circle at the top 
of the ballot. It has a cross before every Republican elector, and something 
like seven or eight crosses before candidates’ names in the Republican column, 
and a half a dozen or so names of candidates in the Democratic column, one 
of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. The cross before the name 
^Stanley Henry Kunz, in my opinion, was made by a different ink and by a 
•different hand than any of the other crosses on this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 
2 has a cross before every Republican elector, and has a cross before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz was made by a different hand than the hand that made any of the other 
crosses on this ballot, but by the same hand that made the cross before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz, on ballot No. 1 of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2 
has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at.the top of the ballet and six or seven 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


125 


other crosses upon the ballot in different columns. In my opinion each of these 
crosses in the body of this ballot were made by one and the same hand, it 
being a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the party circle at 
the top of the ballot, hut by the same hand that made the cross before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz on the previous ballots of this group. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group N'o. 2.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 2 has 
a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot ; it has a cross 
before each of the Socialist electors, and one cross before the name Albert C. 
Kalk in the Socialist column. Each of these mentioned crosses are in ink. 
There is a lead-pencil cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 5 of Group No. 2 
lias a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot and also 
a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot. Both of these 
crosses are in ink. There is a pencil cross before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz. In my opinion, the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was 
made by a different person than the person who made the crosses in ink in 
the party circles at the top of this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. (1 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 6 of Group No. 2 
has a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot, and an at¬ 
tempted cross before each one of the Socialist electors, and a cross before all 
but three or four candidates’ names in the Socialist column. There are four 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Republican column and one before 
a candidate’s name in the Democratic column, that being before the name 
of Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz and the four crosses in the Republican column were made by one 
and the same hand, it being a different hand than the hand that made the other 
crosses upon this ballot hut the same hand that made the crosses before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballots No. 1. No. 2, and No. 3 of this group, 
Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo, we object to these six ballots in Group No. 2, identified by Mr. Rounds 
and counted in the election for Mr. Stanley Henry Kunz, the contestee herein, 
contestant claiming and contending that these ballots should he blanks, so far 
as this contest, as well as the election, is concerned, and that these six ballots 
of Group No. 2, in the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward should 
be deducted from the total count of contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, for Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress in the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Look at ballot No. 2, please, and I will call your attention to the cross 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and then the crosses before pretty nearly 
half of the electors, and I will ask you whether or not you have an opinion 
as to whether those crosses were made by the same hand that made the 
cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. I have. 

Q. Were they made by the same hand or not?—A. They were not. 

Q. Now, I will call your attention to ballot No. G, being the last ballot in this 
Group No. 2, and I will ask you whether the cross in the Socialist circle at the 
top of the ballot is in ink?—A. It is. 

Q. I will ask you whether, in your opinion, that cross was made by the same 
party who made the cross before the electors’ names?—A. It was. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. I will call your attention to the same ballot, Mr. Rounds, being ballot No. 
6 of Group No. 2. It appears from the face of the ballot that there are numerous 
ink blots in the Socialist column. It also appears that there are certain distin¬ 
guishing marks in the column of the Socialist-Labor candidates as electors for 
President. And this mark also appears before the name of the candidate in the 
Socialist column for judge of the circuit court. 

Mr. Asay. When counsel refers to distinguishing marks, does he refer to these 
marks here, or there [indicating on ballot]? 

Mr. Brouillet. That is what I refer to [indicating on ballot]. 

Mr. Asay. Let me ask the witness a question or two concerning that. 

Re-recross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, look at these so-called distinguishing marks that counsel for 
contestant, Dan Parrillo, has called your attention to, and I will ask you to tell 
us whether they are blots or not.—A. They are not pen strokes. 


126 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ, 


Q. Well, are they blots, Mr. Rounds?—A. They are offsets. It has been offset 
by the pen touching here, for instance, when the ballot has been folded over. 

Q. You mean it has been blotted from one part of the paper to another part?— 
A. Yes. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Brouillet: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, would you say that these blots were made by a pen?—A. No, 
they were not. 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, I herewith hand you five ballots in Group No. 3, and I 
will ask you to identify the crosses before the names of candidates on these live 
ballots in Group No. ‘3, commencing with ballot No. 1 in this group.—A. Ballot 
No. 1 of Group No. 3 has crosses before every Republican elector and about two- 
thirds of the candidates’ names in the Republican column. There are about 10 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, 1 of which is before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz. This cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
is an erratic ink cross, different than any of the other crosses on the ballot, 
and underneath it is a pencil cross made with a blue tinted indelible pencil, the 
same colored pencil as the other two crosses that were done in pencil, previ¬ 
ously testified to in this precinct. In my opinion, this cross in ink is not in the 
same ink as any other cross upon the ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 3 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot; it has one 
cross before the name Morris Eller, in the Republican column, and four crosses 
before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion, the cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz was made by a different hand than the hand that made any of 
the other crosses upon this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3, of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 3, of Group No. 3 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and has six 
crosses before candidates’ .names, four in the Democratic column and one in the 
Republican column. The cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made 
by a different hand and a different pen than any of the other crosses on his 
ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4, of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 4, of Group No. 3 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot in ink. There 
are six other crosses before candidates’ names, part of them in the Democratic 
column and part of them in the Republican column, made in ink. arid there is 
a cross in blue indelible pencil before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my 
opinion, the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a dif¬ 
ferent hand and a different implement than any of the other crosses on this 
ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5, of Group No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 5, of Group No. 3 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot; it has two 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Republican column and two crosses be¬ 
fore candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is before the 
name, of Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different hand than the hand that 
made the other crosses on this ballot, but by the same hand that made the 
cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on the first three ballots in this 
group. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show on behalf of the contestant, Dan Par- 
rillo, we challenge these five ballots of group No. 3, in the twenty-eighth pre¬ 
cinct of the sixteenth ward, for the reason that four of these ballots appear 
to be marked in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and for 
the further reason that on ballot No. 4, of this group, being Group No. 3, all 
the crosses appear to be marked with ink, while the one before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz, for Representative in Congress, the cross appears to be 
marked in pencil, and not in the same handwriting as the handwriting of the 
person who made the cross in ink in the other squares on this ballot. Con¬ 
testant, Dan Parrillo, further contends that these four ballots of Group No. 
3 should have been counted for contestant, Dan Parillo, and should be deducted 
from the count of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, in this precinct. 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, I will hand you the ballots constituting Group No. 4, 
there being 16 ballots in Group No. 4 in the twenty-eighth precinct of the 
sixteenth ward, and I will ask you to describe the crosses appearing in the 
squares before the names of candidates on these ballots.—A. Each of these 16 




PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


127 


ballots have a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot, and 
each one of these crosses was made by a different and distinct hand. Each one 
O' these 16 ballots has a cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and certain 
other candidates, which crosses are, I believe, with only one exception of one 
cross, before the same combination of candidates throughout the 16 ballots. 
Each of these crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on these 16 ballots, 
and the other crosses in this combination which I have mentioned, were, in my 
opinion, made by the same hand throughout the 16 ballots, it being a different 
hand than the hand that made any of the crosses in the party circles at the 
top of these ballots. 

Mr. Brouillbt. Let the record show that, on behalf of contestant, Dan 
Parrillo. these 16 ballots in the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward, 
comprising Group No. 4. as testified to by Mr. Rounds, show that the voter 
marked a cross before the party column and in the squares before the names 
of the Socialist candidates, and the contestant, Dan Parrillo, contends that 
these 16 ballots should not have been counted for the contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, at the election, and that they should be deducted from his total vote in 
that precinct. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, in your testimony in regard to every ballot in the twenty- 
eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward- 

Mr. Brouillet. Which group do you refer to? 

Mr. Asay. T am asking him with regard to every ballot in the twenty-eighth 
precinct of the sixteenth ward that he has testified to here. 

A. What is the question? 

Q. In regard to your testimony concerning every ballot that has been chal¬ 
lenged by the contestant in the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward, 
your opinion is founded upon evidence which is plain to the naked eye, is it 
not?—A. Very nearly so. 

Q. In other words, the difference in the crosses is apparent to the naked 
eye, is it not?—A. Very nearly so. The matter of the color of the ink, or the 
color of the pencil, rather, as to whether it would be black or blue, that mav 
not be apparent to the naked eye. 

Q. That of course is different?—A. Yes. 

Q. But I say in every one of these ballots that you have testified to in the 
twenty-eighth precinct of the sixteenth ward, where you say that, in your 
opinion, the crosses were made by a different hand—I am not speaking now of 
a different pencil or a different ink, blit in each instance where you have tes¬ 
tified that the crosses on these ballots were made by a different hand, it is 
founded upon evidence that is apparent to the naked eye, is it not?—A. That 
is true. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that these ballots constituting the 
groups just enumerated by Mr. Rounds will be sealed up in an envelope, which 
in turn will be sealed in the ballot box, and there kept for action of the con 
gressional committee should they so desire, or for the inspection and use of 
the contestee, should he so desire. 

At the hour of 3.30 o’clock p. m. same day, May 18, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had: 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (represent¬ 
ing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William 
C. Assay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

TWENTY-EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the twenty-eighth precinct of the sixeenth ward, as made by he board of 
election commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the 
various candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz : 

Men_ 110 

Women_ 66 

Total_176 

96674-22--9 









128 PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


( 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 71 

Women_ 41 

Total_112 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 9 

Women_ 10 

Total_ 25 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 16 

Women_ 18 

Total_ 34 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_206 

Women_141 

Grand total_347 


Forty-nine ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to 
be sealed in an envelope and the envelope in turn sealed in the ballot box. 

At the hour of 3.45 o’clock p. m. same day, May 18, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinabove described: 

THIRTY-FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to 
a subpoena duces tecum the board of election commissioners, and the clerk 
of said board of election commissioners, have produced a ballot box, which is 
marked the thirty-first precinct of the sixteenth ward on the outside thereof, 
and that in the blanks provided therefor are written the following words and 
figures: 

Number of candidates ballots: 

Democratic— 


Men’s_:_27 

Women’s_14 

Republican— 

Men’s_88 

Women’s_39 

Soc'alist— 

Men’s_ 7 


Women’s (let the record show that it is indistinct and impossible 
to tell whether it is zero or 6). 

It is signed by three persons, apparently the judges of election, in the places 
provided for the signatures of the judges of elect on. 

The ballot box also bears, on the outside thereof, the figures 31-16. 

The flaps are gummed to the bottom and the box is bound round with two 
cords or strings, running both ways. 

The poll book has the usual printed certificate on the outside of the cover 
thereof and bears the inscription “ Thirty-first precinct of the sixteenth ward.” 


Number of men voters_157 

Number of women voters_ 53 

Total_210 


On the inside of the cover is the usual printed certificate, the certificate re¬ 
citing that it was an election held in the thirty-first precinct of the sixteenth 
ward, on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house, a barber shop, 1250 North 
Paulina Street, signed by the names of three individuals in the blanks provided 
for the signatures of the judges of election and by two individuals in the 

































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


129 


blanks provided for the signatures of the clerks of election. An inspection of 
the poll book discloses the names and addresses of 210 persons as having voted 
at the said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, the same as you have done ,n the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., 
Thursday, May 19, 1921.) 


May 19, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties, met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 19, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Guy C. Grapple, commissioner; Mr. 
Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stan¬ 
ley Henry Ivunz. 


THIRTY-FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through the.r respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the thirty-first precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Ivunz: 

Men_ 57 

Women_ 19 


Total_ 76 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 


Men___ 87 

Women_ 31 

Total_118 


Blank votes: 


Men_ 5 

Women_ 1 


Total_ 6 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge : 

Men_ 8 

Women_ 3 


Total 


11 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men_157 

Women_ 54 

Grand total_211 


At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m. the same day, May 19, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on be¬ 
half of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the 
contestee, Stanley H. Ivunz. 

THIRTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena the 
board of election commissioners and the clerk of said board of election commis¬ 
sioners have produced a ballot box, which is marked the thirty-second precinct 
























130 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


of the sixteenth ward, showing 16 men voters and 100 women voters, signed 
by three names in the blanks provided for signatures of judges of election. The 
flaps are not fastened, but there is a rope going both ways around the box. 
On the outside of the box are the figures “ 32-16.” 

The poll book shows that it is the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth 
ward, in pencil. 


Number of men voters_172 

Number of women voters_ 97 

Total___269 


On the inside of the front cover is the usual printed certificate, reciting that 
an election was held in the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward on the 
2d day of November, 1920, at the house of Herman Klocz, 1806 West Division 
Street, signed by three persons in the spaces provided for the signatures of 
judges of election and by two persons in the spaces provided for the signatures 
of clerks of election. An inspection of the poll book shows the names and 
addresses of 269 persons as having voted at the said election, except that of 
the name of the voter opposite No. 177 with the notation “ Not voted.” 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, 
May 19, 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 19, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (represent¬ 
ing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

THIRTIETH PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS resumed the stand as a witness on behalf of the con¬ 
testant and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as fol¬ 
lows : 

Direct examination by Mr. Brouillet : 

Q. Have you examined the ballots of the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth 
ward?—A. I have. 

Q. How many ballots been challenged?—A. Thirty-one. 

Q. How many women ballots and how many men ballots?—A. I don’t know; 

I will have to count. 

Q. Never mind. Did you separate these ballots into groups?—A. I have. 

Q. Have you placed a distinguishing mark on them?—A. I have. 

Q. Describe your markings.—A. Each group has pinned to it a piece of paper, 
and on this paper is indicated the number of the group—1, 2, 3, 4, and 5—and 
besides other notes of mine which I have made on this piece of paper. 

Q. I ask you to examine Group 1 and explain the markings on the ballot.— 
A. Ballot No. 1 of Group 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top 
of the ballot, and has a cross before four or five candidates in the Republican 
column and six crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column. 
There was originally a cross before the name of Dan Parrillo, which has been 
erased but is still visible to the naked eye. There now appears a cross in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 1 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and has crosses in 
front of candidate’s name in the majority of the squares in the Republican 
column. There was originally a cross before the name of Dan Parrillo, which 
has been erased, but the cross is still visible to the naked eye. There are six 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is 
before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 1 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and has a cross 
before every candidate’s name in the Republican column, including one which 
was made before the name Dan Parrillo and which has been erased, but the 
erased cross is still visible to the naked eye. There is one cross in the Demo¬ 
cratic column before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 






PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


131 


Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 1 lias 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top, has a cross before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz, and has a remainder of a cross which has been erased 
before the name Dan Parrillo; this cross is still visible to the naked eye. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5, of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 5, of Group No. 1, 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle, at the top of the ballot, had two 
crosses before candidate’s name, in the Republican column, one of which was 
before the name Dan Parrillo, and which has been erased, but still remains visible 
to the naked eye; there is a cross before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz, in 
the Democratic column. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 6, of Group No. 1.—A. Ballot No. 6, of Group No. 1, 
has a cross in the Harding-Coolidge party circle at the top of the ballot, and 
also a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot; there are 
11 crosses in the Republican column before candidates’ names, and a remainder 
of a cross, which has been erased before the name Dan Parrillo; this erased 
cross is still visible to the naked eye; there is a cross before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz in the Democratic column. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. I would like to have you compare the crosses on ballot No. 1, you have 
described. Compare the cross, before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and the 
rest of the crosses in the Republican-Party column. Have you an opinion 
formed, whether or not these crosses were made by the same person, were all 
the crosses in the Republican column made by the same person? Answer that 
tirst.—A. They were. 

Q. How about the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz? If you have 
an opinion, say so.—A. In my opinion, it was not made by the same hand that 
made any other cross in the Republican column. 

Q. Take ballot No. 2; is the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
made by the same person that made the cross on ballot No. 1, before the name 
of Stanley Henry Kunz, in your opinion? You can take all of the six ballots 
if you want to. Let us know your opinion on all the crosses in all of the six 
ballots, whether or not made by the same person or a different person?—A. No; 
I don’t believe they were made by the same person. 

Q. Do you find any two that were made by the same person?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What are the ballot numbers?—A. Ballot No. 5 and ballot No. 6; also bal¬ 
lot No. 3. 

Q. Ballots 3, 5, and 6 were made by the same person?—A. That is all. 

Mr. Brouillet. The contestant challenges the six ballots, which constitute 
Group No. 1 of the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward, for the reason that 
there appears a cross in the party circle in the Republican column, indicating that 
the voter intended to vote the straight Republican ticket, including Dan Par¬ 
rillo. a candidate for Congress in the eighth congressional district. It is 
further contended by contestant that after the polling place had been closed, 
and during the period that ballots were counted, some person other than the 
voter erased the cross which appeared inside the square before the name of 
Dan Parrillo, and submitted a cross before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz; 
that said cross before the name of Dan Parrillo being still visible to the naked 
eye. 

Mr. Asay. The contestee claims all the six ballots should be counted for 
contestee, as marked. 

Mr. Brouillet. The contestant further contends and objects to these six 
ballots being counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, and that the same should be 
deducted from the total in this precinct. 

Q. Describe Group No. 2.—A. Group No. 2 consists of three ballots. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2 

does not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot; it has about 

two-thirds of the electors in the Republican column and one-third in the 
Socialist column, having crosses in front of their names; all but five or six 
of the candidates in the Republican column have crosses in front of their 
names; there appear an erasure in the square in front of the name Dan Parrillo; 
there is a cross in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In jny 
opinion the cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz is made by a 
different hand than the hand that made the other crosses on this ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 2 

has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and has 10 

crosses before candidates’ names in the Republican column and 1 cross before 


132 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


the name of Stanley Henry Kunz, which cross is, in my opinion, made by a 
different hand and different pencil than that that made the other crosses on the 
ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 2 has 
a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and has a cross 
before every candidate’s name in the Republican column and an erasure appear¬ 
ing in the scpiare in front of the name of Dan Parrillo; there is a cross in 
front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. In that third ballot you said nothing in reference to whether this cross 
before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a person different from 
the one that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top. What 
is the fact about that?—A. It is not dissimilar enough to form an opinion. 

Mr. Brouillet. The contestant challenges the three ballots of Group No. 2 
of the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward on the ground that all of the 
crosses before candidates appearing in the Republican column, ballot No. 1, 
there appears a cross before all the Republican candidates, including Dan Par¬ 
rillo, of candidate for Congress, thereby indicating that the voter intended to 
include Dan Parrillo; that some person after the voting had closed and during 
the count of the ballots made an erasure of a cross appearing in the square 
before the name of Dan Parrillo and substituted a cross before the name of 
Stanley Henry Kunz; said cross being of a different handwriting than the 
crosses appearing in the Republican column. 

Ballot No. 2 of the same group the contestant challenges on the ground that 
there appears in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot a cross, 
thereby indicating the voter intended to vote the straight Republican ticket, 
including Dan Parrillo, a candidate for Congress in the eighth congressional 
district; that after the polling place had closed and during the counting of the 
ballots some person other than the voter made a cross in the square in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Ballot No. 3 of the same group the contestant challenges on the ground that 
there appears a cross in the party circle at the top of the Republican column, 
thereby indicating that the voter intended to vote a straight Republican ticket; 
that after the polls were closed and during the count of the ballots, some person 
other than the voter unlawfully and wrongfully erased the cross appearing 
in the square before the name of Dan Parrillo and substituted a cross in the 
square before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz. 

The contestant challenges the three ballots and claims these three ballots 
should be deducted from the total of Stanley Henry Kunz and counted for 
Dan Parrillo. 

Q. I hand you Group No. 3 of the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward 
and ask you about the identifying mark on there?—-A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 
3 does not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot; it has 
three crosses before candidate’s name in the Republican column, one of which 
is before the name of Dan Parrillo. There are crosses before a majority of the 
candidate’s name in the Democratic column, one of which is before the name 
of Stanley Henry Kunz; this cross before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz is 
an entirely different cross than any other cross on the ballot, and in my opinion 
it was made by a different hand. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of Group No. 3—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 3 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and has 18 
crosses before candidate’s name in the Republican column, one of which is 
before the name Dan Parrillo. There are three crosses in the Democratic 
column before candidates’ names, one of which is before the name of Stanley 
Henry Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz 
was made by a different hand than the hand that made the crosses in the Repub¬ 
lican column, including the cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Was the cross before the name of Dan Parrillo, in your opinion, made by 
a different hand than made the crosses in the rest of the Republican columns in¬ 
cluding the circle?—A. Yes; it was. 

Mr. Brouillet. The contestant challenges the two ballots of Group No. 3 
of the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward on the ground that there appears 
a cross in the square before each of the candidate’s names for Congress, Dan 
Parrillo and Stanley Henry Kunz. The contestant further claims that these 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


133 


ballots should be counted for Dan Parrillo for the reason that the handwriting 
appears to be two different kinds of writing in front of the squares; that the 
crosses appear to be made by two different and distinct persons; the contestant 
further claims that ballot No. 2 of Group No. 3 should be counted for Dan Par¬ 
rillo for the reason that all the crosses appearing in the squares are in the 
Republican column including Dan Parrillo, a candidate for Congress of the eighth 
congressional district; that there appears a cross in the square before the name 
of Stanley Henry Kunz in a handwriting other than that of the voter who placed 
the crosses in the squares before Dan Parrillo and others. 

Mr. Asay. The contestee claims the ballots should be counted as blanks. 

Mr. Brouillet. The contestant claims the ballots should be counted for Dan 
Parrillo and the same should be deducted from the total of the vote cast for 
Stanley Henry Kunz in the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

Q. Describe Group No. 4.—A. Group No. 4 consists of 16 ballots, each one 
having a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and each 
and every one of these crosses at the top of the ballot was made by a different 
and distinct hand. Each one of the 16 ballots in addition to other crosses on 
the ballot has a. cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and in my 
opinion these crosses before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz on each one of 
the 16 ballots were made by the same hand but by a different hand than the 
hand that made any one of the crosses in the party circle at the top of the 
ballots and other crosses on the ballot. 


Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Is your opinion based on similarity or dissimilarity of facts that are appar¬ 
ent to the naked eye?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Brouillet. The contestant challenges the 16 ballots of Group No. 4 of the 
thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward for the reason that there are crosses at 
the party circle at the top of the Republican column, thereby indicating that the 
voter intended to vote the straight Republican ticket, including Dan Parrillo, a 
candidate for Congress in the eighth congressional district, and that some person 
after the polls were closed wrongfully and illegally during the time the ballots 
were counted placed a cross in the square before the name of Stanley Henry 
Kunz, said crosses on these 16 ballots being of a different handwriting than those 
crosses in the Republican column. Contestant claims these ballots should be 
counted for Dan Parrido and the total should be deducted from the total of 
Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Asay. The contestee claims that all should be counted as they appear on 
the face as having been voted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 


By Mr. Brouillet: 

Q. Describe Group No. 5.—A. Group No. 5 consists of 4 ballots. 
q. Describe Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 5 does 
not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot; it has three crosses 
before Republican electors’ names and it has one cross before the name of Stanley 
Henry Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz 
was made by a different hand and by a different pencil than that that made the 

other crosses on this ballot. . 

O. Describe Ballot No. 2 of Group No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 2 of Group o does not 
have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot; it has two crosses 
before Democratic electors’ name and one cross before the name of Stanley Henry 
Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz was 
made by a different hand and a different pencil than the hand and pencil that 
made the other crosses on this ballot, but by the same hand'and same pencil 
that made the cross on Ballot No. 1 of this group. 

O. Describe Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 3 of Group No. 5 has 
a cross in the Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot and has a cross beiore 

the name of Stanley Henry Kunz and a cross before the name of--In ray 

opinion the name of Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different hand tnnn the 
other two crosses on this ballot, but by the same hand that made the crosses m 
front of the name of Stanley Henry Kunz in previous ballots of this group. ^ 
n Describe Ballot No. 4 of Group No. 5.—A. Ballot No. 4 of Group No. o does 
not have any cross in the party circle at the top of the ballots; it has six crosses 
before candidates’ names in the Republican column and possibly twice that num¬ 
ber before candidate’s name in the Democratic column, including a cross beioie 
the name of Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion the cross before the name of 
Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a different hand than that that made an> of 



134 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


the other crosses on this ballot, but by the same hand that made the crosses be¬ 
fore the name of Stanley Henry Kunz on previous ballots of this group. 

Mr. Brouillet. Contestant challenges the four ballots of Group No. 5 of the 
thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward for the reason that the crosses placed 
before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz are all of a different handwriting than 
those that are placed in the Republican column, and contend that these four bal¬ 
lots should be blanks and not counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. The contestant 
further claims that the markings before the square and the crosses placed in the 
square was done by the same person who put the crosses in the previous groups. 
They are all in the same handwriting. 

Mr. Asay. The eontestee claims that they should be counted for Stanley Henry 
Kunz, as marked. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record further show that 27 ballots of the challenged 31 
ballots of the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward should be counted for Dan 
Parrillo and that the same be deducted from the total of Stanley Henry Kunz in 
the thirtieth precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

Mr. Asay. The eontestee claims all should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, 
as marked. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to May 20, 1919, 9.30 o’clock 
a. m.) 

May 20, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 20, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouil¬ 
let (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the eontestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena the 
board of election commissioners and the clerk of said board of election com¬ 
missioners have produced a ballot box which is marked the “ thirty-third pre¬ 
cinct of the sixteenth ward.” 

After the words “ Men’s ballots,” under the title “ Democratic,” are the 
following words and figures: 


Men’s_ 180 

Women’s_ 99 

Republican: 

Men’s__*_ 150 

Women’s_ 33 


Socialist. (Some initialed, not decipherable.) 

It is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of judges of election. The ballot box is not sealed and the flaps are 
not gummed. It is bound both ways by a rope. The rope is loose. 

The poll book shows that it is the poll book of the thirty-third precinct of the 
sixteenth ward and has the following words and figures on the cover thereof: 


Number of men voters_ 180 

Number of women voters_ 99 

Total_ 279 


On the inside of the cover of the poll book is a certificate which recites that it 
was an election held in the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward on the 
2d day of November, 1920, at the house of Louis Fingerhut, No. 1856 West 
Division Street. * 

In the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election appears the 
names of three persons, and in the blanks provided for the signatures of the clerks 
of election appear the names of two persons. 

There are also some, apparently a name and some figures in ink, that appar¬ 
ently have no connection, on the bottom of said page. 

An inspection of the poll book shows that there are the names inscribed therein 
of 279 persons as having voted at the said election, and under the column pro- 











PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


135 


vided for men as contradistinguished from women appears a total of 182, and 
under the women column appear the figures “ 97.” 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein contained, 
the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. m., same clay, May 20, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had: 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing 
Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. 
Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

THIRTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the thirty-second precinct of the-ward, as made by the board of elec¬ 

tion commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz; 

Men- 58 

Women_ 1 _ 27 


Total_ 85 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 63 

Women_ 37 


Total 


100 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 9 

Women_ 10 


Total_ 19 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_1_ 36 

Women_ 24 

Total_ 60 


Total number of ballots cast; 


Men_'_166 

Women_ 98 

Grand total_264 


Five ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, sealed in 
an envelope and envelope in turn sealed in the ballot box. 

At the hour of 11.15 o’clock a. m., same day, May 20, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (repre¬ 
senting Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

THIRTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the re¬ 
count of the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward, as made by the board 
of election commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by 
the various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ ™ 

Women_ 42 


Total 


118 




































136 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 55 

Women_ 28 


Total_ as 


Blank votes: 

Men_,_ S 

Women_ ! _ 7 


Total_ 15 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men____ 40 

Women_ 19 


Total_ 59 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men___179 

Women_ T _ 96 

Grand total_275 


Three ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, sealed 
in an envelope and envelope in turn sealed in the ballot box. 

At the hour of 11.45 o’clock a. m., same day, May 20, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinabove stated. 

THIRTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that the contestant challenges ballot 
No. 1, of the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward, on the ground that 
there appears to be a cross at the head of the column of Socialist candidates, 
signifying that the voter intended to vote for the Socialist candidates with 
the exception of Joseph Haas. 

Contestant, Dan Parrillo, further claims that there appears a distinguish¬ 
ing mark in the square before the name Stanley Henry Ivunz. This distin¬ 
guishing mark appears in the character of four or five lines drawn in the shape 
of a cross, which said cross is in a different handwriting than the other 
crosses placed by candidates’ names in the Socialist column, 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS resumed the stand as a witness on behalf of the 
contestant and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Brouillet, testified as 
follows: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you have qualified as an expert on handwriting, in this con¬ 
test, have you not?—A. 1 ha 

Q. And you are the same Howard A. Rounds who has testified in this con¬ 
test?—A. I am. 

Q. I will call your attention to the cross placed before the Socialist candidates 
on ballot No. 1, of the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward, and I will 
ask you if the crosses placed in the Socialist column are the same as the one 
before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. They are not. 

Q. In your opinion they are two different handwritings?—A. They are. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims 
and contends that this ballot should not have been'counted for contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz, for the reason that after the polling place was closed and during 
the time these ballots were being counted, some person other than the legal 
voter, placed a cross in the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, wrong¬ 
fully and illegally, and contestant claims and contends that this ballot should be 
deducted from the total vote of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz in the thirty- 
second precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee claims that the ballot should 
be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and that, inasmuch as it is not 
included in the total of the recount, it should not be deducted from his total 
vote in any event. • 























PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


137 


, ? ; ? t e ET • Let the recor(1 show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 

ballot No tor the reason that there appears a cross in the Republican Party 
cncle at the top of the ballot, thereby indicating that the voter intended to vote 
a straight Republican ticket, including the name Dan Parrillo, candidate for 
Congress in the eighth congressional district, and that after the polls were 
closed and during the count of the ballots in the polling place, some person 
other than the legal voter wrongfully and unlawfully placed a cross in the 
square before the name Stanley Henry Ivunz, the said cross being of a different 
handwriting than the one placed in the circle at the head of the Republican 
column. 


Mr. Brouillet: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, have you examined ballot No. 2.—A. I have. 

Q. In the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. How many crosses do you find on that ballot?—A. Two crosses. 

Q. Do you find one in the party circle of the Republican column?—A. I do. 

Q. Before the name Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. I do. 

Q. Are they in different handwriting, Mr. Rounds?—A. They are. 

Q. In your opinion were they placed there by two separate and distinct per¬ 
sons?—A. They were. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
that this ballot should be counted as marked, namely, for contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

Let the record also show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges ballot No. 
3 of the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward, on the ground that there 
appears a distinguishing mark in the Democratic column; that said distinguish¬ 
ing mark takes on the charactertistic of six different lines crossing each other, 
but not within any square circle. There also appears a character which looks 
like the letter “ V ” running through from the name James M. Cox and through 
the name appearing below that, Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

Contestant, Dan Parrillo claims that this constitutes a distinguishing mark 
and that the same should not he counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
but that it should be deducted from his total vote in the thirty-second precinct 
of the sixteenth ward. 

Let the record further show that this ballot is further objected to and chal¬ 
lenged on the ground that there is no cross in the square before the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz. It is merely a line drawn by a pencil, running in one 
direction. It. also appears that there is mutilation in the square before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, I will call your attention to ballot No. 3 of the thirty- 
second precinct of the sixteenth ward, and I will call your attention to the 
scrolls appearing at the head of the Democratic column, in the shape of seven 
lines, and I will ask you whether or not the writing in the square before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz is the same handwriting as that, appearing at the 
head of the column?—A. In my opinion it was not done by the same hand or 
the same pencil. 

Q. In other words, in your opinion it was done by two separate and distinct 
persons; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Brouillet. We challenged this ballot on the ground that it should be 
considered a blank on account of its markings. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims that this ballot should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Brouillet. Also let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, chal¬ 
lenges ballot No. 4 of the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward, for the 
reason that there appears a cross in the Socialist column for governor, also 
for State’s attorney in the Socialist column. There also appears a cross before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz, Walter J. LaBuy, and John Kozinski, which 
contestant contends is separate and distinct writing from the handwriting in 
the Socialist column. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I will call your attention to a cross placed in the Socialist 
column in the square before the name Andrew Laflin for governor, and I will 
ask you to distinguish between that cross and the cross placed in the square 
before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and tell us whether or not, in your 
opinion, they are the same handwriting?—A. The two crosses are made with 
a different pencil and with a different construction entirely of the stroke itself, 
and in my opinion was made by a different hand, one from the other. 


138 


PARRILLO YS, KUNZ. 




Mr. Beouillet. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, further 
challenges this ballot for the reason that the mark appearing before the name 
William A. Cunnea for State’s attorney in the Socialist column appears in the 
character of a distinguishing mark, for the reason that the pencil marking, or 
the scrolls placed therein, are of a heavier and more pronounced writing. 

Mr. Asay. As I understand, do you claim that that, ballot should not be 
counted ? 

Mr. Bkouillet. I will sum them all up after I get through. We claim and 
contend that this ballot should be considered as a blank. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, how many crosses do you say there are in the Democratic 
column?—A. Three. 

Q. Are they all made by the same person, in your opinion?—A. In my opinion 
they were. 

Mr. Asay. That is all, except that, contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims that 
this ballot should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, as marked. 

Mr. Bkouillet. Let the record further show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, 
challenges ballot. No. 5 for the reason that there appears a cross in the Repub¬ 
lican Party circle at the head of the ballot, thereby indicating that the voter 
intended to vote the straight Republican ticket, including the name Dan Par¬ 
rillo, candidate for Congress in the eighth congressional district, and that after 
the polls were closed and during the count of the ballots in the polling place 
some person other than the legal voter wrongfully and unlawfully placed a 
cross in the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz; that said cross is of 
a different handwriting than the handwriting that made the cross in the Re¬ 
publican Party circle at the head of the ballot. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Bkouillet: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I will call your attention to two crosses placed on ballot No. 
5, of the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward, and I will ask you to 
examine the crosses in the Republican column and the crosses appearing in 
the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. I have examined them. 

Q. In your opinion, based upon your experience in examining this kind of 
markings, state whether or not these are made by the same person.—A. In my 
opinion they were not made by the same person. 

Q. Your opinion is that they were made by two separate and distinct per¬ 
sons, is it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bkouillet. That is all. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that this ballot is claimed by contestee 
Stanley Henry Kunz, and that it should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, as marked. 

Mr. Bkouillet. Also let the record show that this ballot contains only two 
crosses, one placed in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and 
one in the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Also let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims that ballot No. 
2 and ballot No. 5 of the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward should 
be counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo, for the reasons set forth above, and that 
the same should have been deducted from the total vote cast for contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, in the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward, for 
the same reason. 

Also let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, further claims and con¬ 
tends that ballot No. 3 of the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward should 
have been a blank and not counted, it being the contention and claim of the con¬ 
testant, Dan Parrillo, that the party who placed the distinguishing marks on 
that ballot invalidated the said ballot, and for that reason this ballot should be 
deducted from the total vote cast for the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, in the 
thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

Also let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims that ballot No. 
4 of the thirty-second precinct of the sixteenth ward should also have been a 
blank, for the reason that the handwriting appears to be that of two separate 
and distinct persons, and claims and contends that this ballot should not have 
been counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and that the same should be 
deducted from his total vote cast in this precinct. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, desires to 
state here that he has already made the claims that he desires to be made in 
reference to the counting of the aforesaid five ballots; but that he desires to state 



* 






PAfcRUJLO VS. KUNZ. 


139 


that the record already shows that none of these ballots, held out and placed 
in envelopes, and the envelopes in turn sealed in the ballot box, have been 
counted for either party, and therefore should not be deducted from anything 
except the official count, with which this contestee has nothing to do. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record also show that these five ballots of the thirty- 
second precinct of the sixteenth ward were officially returned in favor of the 
contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz; and let the record show that the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, claims and contends that this return was fraudulent for the rea¬ 
sons set forth above. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that in accordance with the procedure 
heretofore had these ballots will be sealed, put in an envelope and not counted 
in this recount tor either party, and that the sealed envelope which contains 
these ballots will be again placed in the ballot box and the ballot box will be 
sealed up, to be opened in case the congressional committee desires to inspect 
the same or in case contestee desires to offer any proof in regard thereto, 
and they will be held in the custody of the board of election commissioners to 
await the action of the congressional committee or for the inspection of the 
contestee if he so desires, the same as was done with the other ballots. 

Whereupon at the hour of 12 o’clock noon, same day, May 20, 1921, the follow¬ 
ing proceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

THIRTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SIXTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that contestant challenges ballot No. 1 
of the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward for the reason that this ballot 
is marked in blue ink in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, 
and further, that there also appears to be a complicated variety of ink marks 
in the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz in the Democratic column, 
the name aWlter J. LaBuy ,the name Edward Cohn, and the name Michael 
Rosenberg, and that by virtue of this complication of different markings con¬ 
testant, Dan Parrillo, withdraws his challenge and allows this ballot to be 
counted for contestee Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Also let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrilo, challenges ballot No. 2 
of the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward for the reason that there 
appears a cross before the name Warren G. Harding, thereby indicating that the 
voter intended to vote the straight Republican ticket and that after the polls 
were closed and during the counting of the ballots in the polling place some 
person other than the legal voter wrongfully and unlawfully placed a cross 
before the names James Hamilton Lewis, Stanley Henry Kunz, and Michael 
L. Igoe, and that said crosses are of a different handwriting than the ones 
placed in the Republican column. Contestant, Dan Parrillo, further contends 
that these crosses in the Democratic column were put there wrongfully and 
illegally by some person other than the voter. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I will call your attention to two crosses placed on ballot 
No. 2 of the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward, one cross appearing 
in the Republican column in the square before the name Dan Parrillo, and one 
in the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and I will ask you to dis¬ 
tinguish and differentiate these two crosses and tell us whether or not, in 
your opinion, they were made by the same hand writing?—A. The construction 
of these two crosses is considerably different, in that the vertical line in the 
one before the name Dan Parrillo is unshaded stroke. The vertical stroke 
in the one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz has a sharp point at the upper 
end but is shaded very, heavily at the lower point. The cross construction of 
these two crosses cross the uprights at different angles in the two crosses, the 
one in the square before the name Dan Parrillo progressing downward as it 
goes toward the right, and one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz pro¬ 
gressing upward as it progresses toward the right. The cross before the 
name Dan Parrillo has the same construction as the cross before the name 
Warren G. Harding at the top of this ballot, and in my opinion these two 
crosses, the one before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and the one before the 
name Dan Parrillo, were made by different hands. 

Q. Let me see if I understand you correctly. The crosses before the name 
Warren G. Harding and the cross before the name Dan Parrillo are of the same 
characteristics, are they not?—A. Yes, sir; but this one before the name Stanley 
Kunz is different. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that contestant challenges ballot No. 3 
of the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward, for the reason that there 


140 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


appears a cross in the square before the name Abraham K. Siskind, in the 
Socialist column. There also appears a character in the square before the name 
Michael Rosenberg, said character being in ink and representing ostensibly a 
cross. There also appears a cross in the square before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz, said cross being of a different handwriting than the one in the Socialist 
column. Contestant, Dan Parrillo, further challenges this ballot for the reason 
that these two handwritings were made by separate and distinct persons, and 
that it was the intention of the voter to vote merely for the Socialist candidate. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I hand you herewith ballot No. 3 of the thirty-third precinct of 
the sixteenth ward, and I will ask you to distinguish between the cross in the 
square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz and the cross placed in the square 
before the name Abraham K. Siskind and the name Michael Rosenberg, and I 
will ask you if the two crosses, the character of the cross in the square before 
the name Michael Rosenberg, are the same handwriting and made by the same 
person?—A. In my opinion the cross before the name Michael Rosenberg and 
the cross before the name Abraham K. Siskind were both made w T ith a dull- 
pointed pen, and the cross before the name Abraham K. Siskind, one of the 
cross marks, the pen did not mark its full width, but made a scratchy mark. 
The cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a very sharp- 
pointed pen and with a somewhat distinctly constructed cross from the other two 
crosses, and in my opinion was made by a different hand. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 4 of the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward, for the reason 
that there appears a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot, thereby indicating that the voter intended to vote the straight Republican 
ticket, including the contestant, Dan Parrillo, candidate for Congress, in the 
eighth congressional district, but that after the polls were closed, and while the 
ballots were being counted in the polling place, some person other than the 
legal voter wrongfully and illegally placed a cross in ink and in a different 
handwriting before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I will ask you to examine the cross on ballot No. 4 of the 
thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward, and I will ask you whether or not, 
in your opinion, the crosses have been made by two separate and distinct per¬ 
sons?—A. The crosses which counsel has mentioned—one in the party circle at 
the top of the Republican column and the one before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz—are different, in this, that the pen strokes constructing the cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot are of the same heft from 
beginning to end ; that is, the nibs of the pen were spread at the same distance, 
the same pressure being maintained throughout both of the strokes. The char¬ 
acter of the stroke in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz is such that it 
would indicate that when the pen w^as first put on the paper the nibs of the pen 
were spread and the pen was then pulled away and off of the paper and with 
less pressure, so that the strokes came to a point. These two crosses are also 
different in that the manner in which the cross stands, the two strokes before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz run practically from corner to corner of the 
square, while the strokes in the party circle at the top of the ballot—one of them 
would run from the upper left to the lower right corner, if it was a square, but 
the other cross is diagonal, running from corner to corner, and in my opinion 
they were made by separate and distinct persons. 

Q. Now, Mr. Rounds, the opinion that you have just expressed is based on 
approximately 22 to 25 years’ experience in examining marks and characteristics 
of this kind, and it is based entirely on your past experience in dealing with 
this kind of markings, is it?- 1 —A. Yes, sir; I have had the experience that you 
refer to. 

Mr. Brouillet. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Your experience, however, in examining marks on ballots is limited to the 
experience that you had had in this contest, in the Gartenstein-Sabath contest, 
and in the contest that is now pending between Golombiewski and Rainey, as 
you have testified in chief; is that not correct?—A. That is true, except for 
identification crosses on wills, and that sort of thing, where a person is unable 
to write. 

Q. And you base your opinion, as given in response to counsel’s question, as 
to the difference in the party who made the two crosses, substantially, and 
entirely because of the characteristics that you have detailed, namely, com- 



PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


141 


mencing at a small point and going to a wider line in one case, and in the other 
case being equally wide lines at the intersection of the two lines; isn’t that 
true?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 


Re-redirect examination by Mr. Brouillet: 

Q. But your examination of these marks and characteristics, Mr. Rounds, 
is based more than merely on your opinion; it is substantiated by your ex¬ 
perience, is it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that contestant claims that ballot No. 
3 and ballot No. 4 of the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward should 
have been counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo, for the reasons set forth in 
the foregoing record, and the same should have been deducted from the total 
vote cast for contestee Stanley Henry Kunz in the thirty-third precinct of the 
sixteenth ward. Also, let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, 
challenges and contends that ballot No. 2 should be considered a blank, for 
the reasons already stated by the expert, Mr. Rounds, and that the same 
should have been deducted from the total vote cast for contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, in the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record also show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and insists that ballot No. 2 should be counted for contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz, as it was marked; that ballot No. 3 should be counted for neither 
party, as there are two marks, one before the name of each candidate for 
Congress, and that ballot No. 4 should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz. 


Re-recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr Rounds, have you marked the three ballots in question in this precinct, 
being the thirty-third precinct of the sixteenth ward, and'pinned them together 
with a pin?—A. I have. 

Q. And on that you have made a notation of three women’s ballots, have 
you not?—A On the piece of paper pinned to the ballots I have; yes, sir. 

Q. And these ballots are Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively, are they not?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that, in accordance wi ththe procedure 
heretofore had, these ballots will be sealed, put in an envelope, and not counted 
in this recount for either party, and that the sealed envelope which contains 
these ballots will be again placed in the ballot box and the ballot box will be 
sealed up, to be opened in case the congressional committee desires to inspect the 
same or in case contestee desires to offer any proof in regard thereto, and they 
will be held in the custody of the board of election commissioners to await the 
action of the congressional committee, or for the inspection of contestee if he 
so desires, the same as was done with the ether precincts. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. m., Monday. 

May 23. 1921.) 

May 23, 1921—9.30 a. m. 


The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 23, 1921. pursuant to adjournment 

e pr^esen t: *Mr?'uy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A Brouil¬ 
let (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo , 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 

|]..i^et o fore taken. record show that it Is stipulated by and between the 

norHes throS their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena the 
no If of election commissioners and the clerk of said board of election comm.*, 
sion'erif^ha^ve produced a ballot box which is marked the first preemet of the 

“wSfprovided for the number of candidates ballots appear the 
following: 


Democratic: 

Men’s- 

Women’s- 


92 

35 




142 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Republican: 

Men’s__ 

Women’s_ 27 

Socialist: 

Men’s_ 10 

Women’s- 3 

It is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of judges of election. This all appears on the outside of said box. 
The flaps on this box are gummed on, and the box is secured further by a rope 
or a heavy string going both ways around it. On the outside of the box is 
the figure “1 ” with a dash after it, and then the figure “17.” 

There is also a package apparently containing ballots. It has a green cord, 
having on the outside the inscription “ First precinct, seventeenth ward.” 
This package is about 3 feet long and about a foot wide and is covered with 
newspaper and the newspapers are secured around said package by a rope which 
is wound three different ways and knotted at each intersection of said rope. 

The poll book purports to be the poll book of the first precinct of the seven¬ 
teenth ward, and in the blanks provided therefor shows the following: 


Number of men voters_ 278 

Number of women voters- 83 

Total_ 361 


On the inside of the cover is the usual printed certificate, which recites that 
it was an election of the first precinct of the seventeenth ward, held on the 
2d day of November, 1920, at the house of Peter Gersiewicz, No. 1159 Noble 
Street, signed in the blanks provided for the names of judges of election by 
three persons and in the blanks provided for the names of clerks of election 
by two persons, and an inspection of the poll book shows the names of 361 
persons as having voted at said election. 

You may now proceed to open the ballot box and package and count the 
ballots therein contained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11 a. m., same day, May 23, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. 
Brouillet (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena the 
board of election commissioners and the clerk of said board of election com 
missioners have produced a ballot box which is marked the second precinct 
of the seventeenth ward. 

In the blanks provided for the number of candidates in the Democratic 
column appear the following words and figures: 


Men_ 194 

Women_ 94 

Republican: 

Men- 194 

Women_ 94 


It is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of judges of elation, and on the ballot box appear the marks “ 2-17.” 

The flaps of the box are gummed, and the ballot box is wound around twice 
with a tight rope. 

The poll book of said precinct shows that it is the poll book of the second 
precinct of the seventeenth ward, and the following appears on the cover of 
said book: 


Number of men voters_194 

Number of women voters_ 94 


Total 


288 


















PARRILLO V6. KUNZ. 


143 


There is the usual printed certificate on the inside of the cover of the poll 
book, the certificate reciting that it was an election held in the second precinct 
of the seventeenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of 
Roman Crechonski, No. 1146 Milwaukee Avenue, and there are the names of 
three persons signed in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of 
election, and the names of two persons signed in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of clerks of election. An inspection of the poll book discloses and 
shows that there are inscribed therein the names and addresses of 2S8 persons 
as having voted at said election. 

There is also presented from this prec'nct a package bound around in two 
ways by heavy rope, which package apparently contains three envelopes. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and package and count the ballots 
therein contained, the same as you have done in the other precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 o'clock 
p. m., same day, May 23, 1921. Whereupon, at the hour of 4 30 p. m., same 
day, an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., Mav 24, 
1921.) 

May 24, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 a. m., May 24, 1921, pursuant to adjournment here¬ 
tofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Haynle R. Pierson 
(representing Mr. Fank D. Ayes), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William G. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Pierson, testified as follows: 

Q. Your name is Howard A. Rounds?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are the same Mr. Rounds who has heretofore testified in this con¬ 
test, are you not?—A. I am. 

Q. I will ask you if you examined the challenged ballots in the second pre¬ 
cinct of the seventeenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. How many of them are there, Mr. Rounds?—A. There are 4. 

Q. And have you marked them for identification?—A. I have. 

Q. In what manner have you marked them for identification?—A. In the up¬ 
per right-hand corner with the figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. respectively. 

Q. You have made an examination both with and without the magnifying 
glass, have you?—A. I have. 

Q. You may describe the ballot which has been marked No. 1.—A. Ballot 
No. 1 has a cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot Single Tax, also 
Socialist Labor, and also Democratic. There is in the body of the ballot a cross 
before the name of Emma B. Denny, in the Socialist-Labor column, and two 
crosses before the candidates names in the Democratic column, no cross ap¬ 
pearing before any name of any candidate for Representative in Congress. 

In my opinion the crosses in the party circle of the Single-Tax Party and 
the Socialist-Labor Party were made by the same hand, and that same hand 
made the cross in front of the name Emma B. Denny. The Crosses in the Demo¬ 
cratic circle at the top of the ballot and before the Democratic names, in my 
opinion, were made by a different hand than the hand that made the cross 
in the Socialist-Labor Party and the Single-Tax column at the top of the 
ballot. 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims 
and contends that this ballot should be counted as a blank, and the contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, objects to this ballot being counted for contestee, Stanley H. 
Kunz, for the reason that the ballot appears to have been tampered with at 
some time subsequent to its being voted by the voter, and that the crosses in 
the Democratic column were put on there by some person other than the voter. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee. Stanley Henry Kunz. eminw 
and contends that the ballot should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, because of the cross in the Democratic Party circle, and for the fnrtbe’* 
reason that there are no candidates for Representative in Congress in the 
Socialist-Labor Uarty or in the Single-Tax Party. 


96674—22-10 



144 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


By Mr. Pierson : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2, Mr. Rounds.—A. Ballot No. 2 lias a cross in the 
Socialist Party circle at the top of the ballot and there is a pen stroke drawn 
through the words “ Socialist-Labor ” in the same colored ink as the cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. There are six crosses be¬ 
fore candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of which is before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, these crosses in the Democratic column were made by a differ¬ 
ent hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at 
the top of the ballot and by a different ink. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3.—A. Ballot No. 3 has a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot. It has numerous crosses in the Democratic 
column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, this cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was not made 
by the same hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top 
of the ballot. 

Q. Describe ballot No .4, please.—A. Ballot No. 4 has a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot and has four crosses before candidates’ 
names in the Democratic column, one of which is before the name, of Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was not made 
by the same hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top of this ballot. 

Mr. Piekson. Let the record show that the contestant; Dan Parrillo, claims 
that these three ballots should all be counted for contestant, Dan Parrillo, as 
candidate for Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional dis¬ 
trict, for the reason that the crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
were made by some person other than the voter subsequent to the same having 
been voted. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, the three ballots in question, namely, ballot No. 2, ballot 
No. 3, and ballot No. 4, upon which you have expressed an opinion of the 
difference in the crosses, these differences upon which you found your opinion 
are patent to the naked eye, are they not?—A. They are. 

Q. And it does not involve any expert in this case to determine that fact, 
does it? 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, by his 
counsel, objects to that question. 

A. Well, not in the way of instruments or anything of that kind. 

By Mr. Asay : 

Q. Getting to the ultimate fact?—A. Not in the way of instruments or any¬ 
thing of that kind, except that a medium magnificaion helps on the color of 
the ink. 

Q. In other words, every one of the elements that go to afford a foundation 
for your opinion are apparent to the naked eye, except that by slight magnifica¬ 
tion you think that the color of the ink might be differentiated. Is that it?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and contends that these three ballots should be counted for contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

Let the record further show that the witness pins the four ballots challenged 
in this precinct together with a piece of paper on the outside, the pin including 
all four ballots, and marks them in pencil “ 4 ballots.” 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record further show that in accordance with the pro¬ 
cedure and stipulation heretofore had the four ballots testified to by the 
witness, Howard A. Rounds, will be sealed up in a separate envelope, and that 
envelope in turn will be sealed up in the ballot box, to be held to await action 
by the congressional committee if desired, or by the contestee, for further 
examination should he desire. 

Whereupon, at the hour of 11.45 o’clock a. m. same day, May 24, 1921, the 
following proceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore 
stated. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


145 


FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Pierson, testified as follows: 

Q. Your name is Howard A. Rounds?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you are the same Mr. Rounds who has heretofore testified in this com 
test on behalf of the contestant, are you not?—A. I am. 

Q- I will show you nine ballots which are challenged by the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo, and I will ask you if you have marked them for identification?—A. I 
have. 

Q. How have you marked them for identification?—A. I have numbered each 
one in the upper right-hand corner, numbers from 1 to and including No. 8. I 
will pin to the group a piece of paper marked “ 9 ballots,” which pin fastens 
the ballots and paper together. 

Q. I will ask you if you have examined these ballots and the crosses upon 
them carefully?—A. I have. 

Q. Both with the naked eye and with the magnifying glass?—A. I have. 

Q. You may describe them, telling what you found; describe ballot No. 1 
first.—A. Ballot No. 1 does not have any cross in the party circle at the top of 
the ballot. There are crosses before all but five candidates’ names in the Re- 
publican column. All of these crosses which I have mentioned were, in my 
opinion, made by one and the same hand. There are seven crosses in the 
Democrataic column, one of which is before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by a 
different hand, it being a different formation of a cross than the crosses in the 
Republican column. 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, objects to 
this ballot being counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, on the ground that the cross 
in front of his name was not placet! there by the voter, but by some other person, 
unauthorized and illegally, subsequently. 

Mr. Asay. And you claim that it should be counted as a blank? 

Mr. Pierson. And that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims that tins ballot 
should be counted as a blank and that the same should be deducted from the 
total official vote cast for Stanley Henry Kunz in this precinct. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and contends that the ballot is properly marked for contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz, and that the same should lie counted for the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Pierson. Describe ballot No. 2, Mr. Rounds. 

A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the Socialist-Labor Party circle at the top of 
the ballot and has numerous crosses before the candidates’ names in the Demo¬ 
cratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion this cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by 
a different hand and a different pen than the hand that made the cross in the 
Socialist-Labor Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims that 
this ballot should be counted as a blank, on the ground that the mark in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz was not placed there by the voter, but by 
some other unauthorized person subsequently, and that the same should be 
deducted from the total vote of the official count for Stanley H. Kunz in this 

precinct. _ 

Mr. Asay. And 'let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and contends that this ballot should be counted for contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, the two ballots which you have just examined and testified 
to. the characteristics which you have just described are apparent to the naked 
eye, are they not?—A. They are. 

' Q. There is no magnifying glass necessary on those, is there? 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Pierson : 

Q. You have also examined them under the magnifying glass, have you not, 
Mr. Rounds?—A. I have. 


146 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Q. Now, describe ballot No. 3?—A. Ballot No. 3, ballot No. 4, ballot No. 5, 
ballot No. 6, and ballot No. 7 have crosses in the Republican Party circle at the 
top of the ballot, and they all have numerous crosses before the candidates’ 
names in the Democratic column, each one of them having a cross in front of the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion each of these crosses before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on 
each of these ballots were made by a different hand than the hand that made 
the cross in the party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, chal¬ 
lenges these five ballots, namely, ballot No. 3, ballot No. 4, ballot No. 5, ballot 
No. 6, and ballot No. 7, on the ground that they were originally voted for con¬ 
testant, Dan Parrillo, candidate for the office of Representative in Congress 
from the eighth congressional district, and that subsequently some other person 
other than the legal voters, unautliorizedly and illegally, placed a mark in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims and con¬ 
tends that these five ballots should be added to the official count of contestant, 
Dan Parrillo, for said office in said precinct, and that they should be deducted 
from the official count of Stanley Henry Kunz, contestee herein. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. With reference to these live ballots just mentioned, Mr. Rounds, I will ask 
you if it would take a microscope to detect the differences you have testified to, 
in your opinion?—A. No, sir. 

Q. It is patent to the naked eye, is it not, in your opinion?—A. It is patent 
to the naked eye; yes, sir. 

Q. But it is a little bit plainer possibly if it is magnified. That is, you get a 
bigger figure if it is magnified?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
that the aforesaid five ballots should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz, on the recount. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Pierson : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 8?—A. Ballot No. 8 has a cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot and has numerous other crosses throughout the 
body of the Democratic and Republican columns, one of which is before the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion, the cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz was made by 
a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
this ballot, being ballot No. 8, on the ground that the mark in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz was not placed there by the voter, but by some person 
subsequently to the ballot being voted, such person being unauthorized to so 
place said cross in said square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and that 
contestant, Dan Parrillo, claims and contends that this ballot should be added 
to the total of the official count for contestant. Dan Parrillo, in this precinct, and 
should be deducted from the total of the official count of contestee, Stanley Henry 
Kunz. 

Re-recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, with reference to that third ballot, being ballot No. 8, the char¬ 
acteristics, in your opinion, that you have based your opinion on, are patent to 
the naked eye, are they not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you did not need the aid of a microscope in order to distinguish these 
characteristics, did you?—A. Not particularly. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
and contends that this ballot, being ballot No. 8, should be counted for contestee, 
Stanley Henry Kunz, and not for contestant, Dan Parrillo. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Pierson : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 9, Mr. Rounds?—A. Ballot No. 9 has a cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot made with a lead pencil. There 
are other crosses before other candidates’ names in the Republican column, 
except four. There are four crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic 
column. All of these crosses in the body of this ballot were made in ink, one of 
the crosses in ink appearing before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, no cross 
appearing before the name Dan Parrillo. 

Q. I will ask you, Mr. Rounds, if the cross in the party circle at the top of the 
Republican column is in ink or in lead pencil?—A. It is in lead pencil. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


147 


Q. Does it appear to you to be made by the same hand which made the cross 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz? 

Mr. Asay. Contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, objects to the form of this question, 
and insists that the question should be, “ have you any opinion in regard to it.” 


By Mr. Pierson : 


Q. Well, have you any opinion as to whether the same hand made the. cross in 
the Republican Party circle that made the cross in the square in front of the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. I have an opinion, but it is not a very strong one. 

Q. You may state the reason for your opinion?—A. The reason for my opinion 
is this, that in the construction of the cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top of the ballot, which is made with a lead pencil, the lead pencil colored stroke 
that goes from the upper left to the lower right starts in with a hair line at the 
top and ends abruptly with a heavy stroke at the bottom. The line crossing 
from the upper right to the lower left is a light line of the same heft from top 
to bottom. In the cross in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz the stroke 
that goes from the upper left to the lower right is heavy at the upper extremity 
and light at the bottom, and the stroke that goes from the upper right to the 
lower left is heavy at the top and light at the bottom end of the stroke, and the 
slant of this last stroke is at a slightly different angle than the one in the party 
circle at the top of the ballot. These differences, in my opinion, do suggest that 
it was made by a different hand. 

Mr. Pierson. Let tlm record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, chal¬ 
lenges this ballot, and contends that it should be counted for contestant, Dan 
Parrillo, and that the same should be deducted from the official count for con¬ 
testee, Stanley Henry Kunz, in this precinct. 


Re-recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, the left-hand stroke in front of the cross, beginning with the 
Republican electors, all the way through generally commence with a heavy 
stroke and peter to a thin one, do they not?—A. All of the ink crosses do; yes, 
sir. 

Q. Every one of them?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Then, in your opinion, were all the ink crosses on this ballot made by the 
same person?—A. They were. 

(>. Now, then, Mr. Rounds, I will call your attention to the cross in front of 
ttie riarfle Stanley Henry Kunz. You say that was made by the same hand that 
made the rest of "the crosses all through this ballot except in the circle, do you? 

A. Yes. sir. 

Q. That is correct, is it?—A. Yes. sir. „ 

q And there is no cross before Dan Parrillo’s name of any kind, is there?— 

^ ^ s i l* 

* Q. There is no cross before the name Edward Walz, is there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Opposite to Petlak’s name?—A. No, sir. , . . 

O. There is a cross before the name Joseph A. Petlak, is there not .—A. There is. 
O And following along the same line you find a cross before Crowe’s name 
and none before Joe Haas’s name; is that correct?—A. That is correct 

O You find a cross before Joe Kozinsky’s name and none before the name 
of his opponent on the Republican ballot, Ben. IJ. Shu re; is that collect. 

^ Vr'' Asay”L et the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims that this ballot should be counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 

“'Mr'P ieksoT LeMh^-oril further show that, in accordance with the custom 
and nrocXre and stipulation hertofore had, these ballets wil not be counted 
‘ in ei i irfv hnt will be sealed up in an envelope, which envelope m turn 
w^MuTsealed^up^n^the' bi Uot'liox and there retained and kept for further ex- 
w the concessional committee should it so desire, or for further 
annn.i >’ • . contus t ee should he so desire on the presentation of his case, 

eX ( Whereupon an^djourmnent \vas here taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m„ 

^The^artomet afllo o’clock p. m, same day, May 24. 1021, pursuant to 
rillo ■ ’ivir. ' william cLsay/on behalf of’the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


148 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record show that it is agreed by the parties to this con¬ 
test, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum the board of election commissioners and their chief clerk have presented 
a ballot box which is marked the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, the 
following appearing upon the face of such box: 


Number of men voters_210 

Number of women voters_119 


Total_’_329 


It is signed by three persons, presumably judges of election, in the blanks 
provided for the. signatures of judges of election. 

One of the flaps on the box is gone and the other one is loose. There is a rope 
tied twice around the box, going around the box two ways. 

The poll book presented is the poll book of the third precinct of the seven¬ 
teenth ward, showing the following: 


Men_210 

Women_i_119 

Total_329 


On the inside of the cover of said poll book there is the usual printed certifi¬ 
cate, the certificate reciting that an election was held in the third precinct 
of the seventeenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of 
Joseph P. Szymanski, No 1018 Milwaukee Avenue. 

The certificate is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided 
for the signatures of the judges of election and in two places provided for 
the signatures of the clerks of election. 

An inspection of the poll book discloses the names of 329 persons as having 
voted at said election. 

In addition thereto there is a roll tied two ways with rope and also with 
string, and the bundle is presumed to be ballots. They are rolled and not 
folded. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and the bundle and count the ballots 
contained therein, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2 o’clock p. m., same day, May 24, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Pierson. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties to this contest through their attorneys that in response to 
a subpoena duces tecum the board of election commissioners and their chief 
clerk have presented a ballot box which is marked the fourth precinct of the 
seventeenth ward. 

In the proper blanks appear the following figures: 

After the words “ Men’s Democratic ballots ” appear the figures “ 77.” 

After the words “ Women’s Democratic ballots ” appear the figures “ 39.” 

After the words “ Republican men’s ” appear the figures 78,” and after the 
word “ Republican women’s ” appear the figures “ 41.” 

After the words “ Socialist men’s ” appears the figure “ 6,” nothing appearing 
after the words ** Socialist women’s.” 

It is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for the signa¬ 
tures of judges of election. On the outside of the box are the figures “ 4-17.” The 
flaps on the box are gummed and stuck, and the box is bound with a string two 
ways. 

The poll book before us is apparently the poll book of the fourth precinct of 
the seventeenth ward and shows the following: 

Number of men voters_ 234 

Number of women voters_ rn 


Total 


345 














PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


149 


On the inside of tlie cover of the poll book appears the usual printed certificate, 
the eeitificate reciting that it is an election held in the fourth precinct of the 
seventeenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of N W V 
Settlement, No. 1400 Augusta Street. 

The book is signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for I he 
signatures of tire judges of election and by two persons in the blanks provided 
tor the signatures of the clerks of election. 

An inspection of the poll book discloses the names of 345 persons as having 
voted at said election. 

\ on may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein contained, 
the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2.15 o’clock p. m. same day, May 24, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had : 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (repre¬ 
senting Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount of 
the first precinct of the seventeenth ward, as made by the board of election com¬ 
missioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various can¬ 


didates : 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_144 

Women_ 4 g 


Total_1_192 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_100 

Women_ 28 


Total_128 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 8 

Women_ 4 


Total___ 12 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 13 

Women_ 2 

f \ - 

Total_ 15 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_265 

Women_ 82 


Grand total-347 


Nine ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be sealed 
in an envelope and the envelope to be sealed in ballot box. 

At the hour of 2.20 o’clock p. m., same day, May 24, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had; 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (representing 
Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the second precinct of the seventeenth ward, as made by the board of elec- 






























150 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


tion commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the 
various candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz : 

Men_123 

Women_ 1 _ 57 


Total__180 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo : 

Men_ 43 

Women_j_ 19 


Total_ 62 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 14 

Women___ 13 


Total_ 27 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_i___ 10 

Women_ 5 


Total_ 15 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_•__190 

Women__ 94 


Grand total_284 


Four ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be sealed 
in an envelope and the envelope to be sealed in the ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock May 25, 1921.) 

May 25, 1921—9 30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., May 25, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouil- 
let (representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William O. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena 
the board of election commissioners and the clerk of said board of election com- 
miss.oners have produced a ballot box, which is marked the “ Fifth precinct 
of the seventeenth ward.” 

In the blanks on the face of the ballot box are the following figures: 

Number of candidates: 


Democratic: 

Men_ 92 

Women_ 4^3 

Republican : 

Men_ 84 

Women_ 73 

Socialist: 

Men-——_ 15 

Women_ 42 


The names of three persons appear in the blanks provided for the signatures 
of the judges of election on this ballot box. The flaps on the box are gummed 



































PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


151 


and the box has two ropes, going both ways around it, and has the figures on 
the outside, “ 5-17.” 

The poll book, on the cover thereof, recites that it is the poll hook of the 
fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward, and contains the words and figures, us 
follows: 


Number of men voters_,_ 216 

Number of women voters_ 106 

Total__—_ 322 


It contains the usual certificate on the inside of the cover, the certificate 
reciting that an election was held in the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward 
on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of—the address and names are 
transposed—Joseph Ruskeininz, No. 1536 Chicago Avenue, and in the blanks 
provided for the signatures of the judges of election are the names of three 
individuals, and in the blanks provided for the signatures of the clerks of 
election are the names of two individuals. An inspection of the poll book dis¬ 
closes that it has the names and addresses of 322 persons as having voted at 
the said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con- 
stained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m., 
same day, May 25, 1921.) 

The parties met at the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 25, 1921, pur¬ 
suant to adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, namely, Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, pre¬ 
siding; Mr. Lundin, representing Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (appearing on behalf 
of Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on 
behalf of the contestee. 


FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Lundin, testified as follows: 

Q. You are the same Howard A. Rounds who has heretofore testified as a 
witness in this contest, are you not?—A. I am. 

Q. I will ask you if you have examined challenged ballots in the fourth pre¬ 
cinct of the seventeenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. How many challenged ballots are there in this precinct?—A. Five. 

Q. Have you marked them for identification?—A. I have. 

Q. How have you marked them for identification?—A. These ballots are 
identified by figures in the upper right-hand corner “ No. 1,” “ No. 2,” “ No. 3,” 
“ No. 4 .” a nd “ No. 5.” They are pinned together by pinning a piece of paper 
onto the ballots so as to hold them all together. 

Q. I will hand you these five challenged ballots in the fourth precinct of the 
seventeenth ward, which have been marked, respectively, for identification, 
‘‘No. 1,” No. 2,” No. 3,” No. 4,” and “No. 5,” and I will ask you to describe 
the markings thereon, taking up ballot No. 1 first.—A. Ballot No. 1 has an ink 
blot in the Democratic Party circle at the top of the ballot. This ink blot is 
very heavy and it is impossible to see through it. There are no other marks 
on the ballot except a scroll in the very upper left-hand corner of the ballot and 
a very small cross mark below the Democratic Party circle. 

Mr Lundin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenged 
ballot No 1 of the fourth precinct of the seventeenth ward, for the reasons 
already stated by Mr. Rounds, and for the further reason that this so called 
blot constitutes an identification and distinguishing mark, and contestant con¬ 
tends and claims that said ballot should not be counted for either party, but 
should be a blank in so far as the candidates for Representative in Congress 

are concerned. _ T _ . . 

Mr Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 

and contends that this ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q Describe ballot No. 2 for identification.—A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in 
front of every one of the Republican electors, has a miscellaneous number of 
crosses before candidates’ names in the Republican and also in the Democratic 






152 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


columns. There is a mark in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz. This mark consists of a mark going from the upper left to the lower 
right-hand corner of the square, and a mark go ng from near the upper right- 
hand corner of the square down to and intersecting with the other cross mark. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant challenged ballot No. 2 for 
identification of the fourth precinct of the seventeenth ward for ‘the reasons 
already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objections heretofore 
made, and also foi* the reason that the so-called mark in the square in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz consists of a distinguishing and identification 
mark in the shape of a V. Contestant, Dan Parrillo further contends and 
claims that this ballot, should not be counted for either party to this contest, 
but should be a blank in so far as the candidates for Representative in Con¬ 
gress from the eighth congressional district are concerned. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, contends 
that this ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3, so marked for identification, Mr. Rounds.—A. Bal¬ 
lot No. 3 has a cross before all but three or four of the candidates in the 
Republican column. There is no mark before the name Dan Parrillo. There 
is one single mark drawn part way through the square in front of the. name 
Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, do you discover any mark, whether by pen or otherwise, 
going at right angles and constituting a cross in the square in front of the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. No. The upright stroke, as I described it, 
has been blurred so that there is other ink within the square, but not made 
with a pen stroke. 

Q. Now i will ask you again, Is there not, at almost right angles with that, 
an ink character drawn, whether by pen, brush, or whether by blot?—A. There 
are several blotted streaks running out from this upright pen stroke. 

Q. Now, if considering this mark that you speak of running out, if that 
was made by a pen, it would be a cross, wouldn’t it? I am trying to get into 
the record that there is a cross apparently there, but not made, as you claim, 
by a pen. 

Mr. Lundin. I object to counsel’s remark that there is apparently a cross 
there. 

A. As I stated before, there are ink blots running out from this upright 
stroke. 

Q. But all I ask is, Those ink blots, taken in connection with the upright 
stroke, assume the form of a cross, do they not?—A. One of them might be 
considered to. 

Q. Just the shape I mean, Mr. Rounds?—A. Yes. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenged 
ballot No. 3 for identification of the fourth precinct of the seventeenth ward 
for the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any of his other 
objections, and for the further reason that there appears no cross in the 
square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz; and contestant further 
claims and contends that this ballot should be a blank in so far as the candi¬ 
dates for the office of Representative in Congress from the eighth congres¬ 
sional district are concerned and should not be counted for either party. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
and contends this ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 for identification.—A. Ballot No. 4 has a circle 
drawn directly above the word Republican at the top of the ballot. In this 
circle appears a cross in addition to other lines. There appear several crosses 
throughout the body of this ballot, one of which is in the square in front of 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

In my opinion the cross within this pen-made circle at the top of the ballot 
was not made by the same hand that made the cross in the square in front of 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Re-recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Were the other crosses on the ballot made by the same hand as the hand 
that made the cross in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz?— 
A. In my opinion they were. 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


153 


Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Lundin. Let tlie record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 4 for identification in the fourth precinct of the seventeenth ward 
for the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objections, 
and contends that this ballot should be a blank in so far as the candidates for 
the office of Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional district 
are concerned, and not counted for either party. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
and contends this ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5 for identification.—A. Ballot No. 5 has a cross in 
the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot that consists of two or more 
lines drawn in each direction. There are a number of lines drawn in, around, 
and through the square in front of the name Edward Walz and Dan Parrillo. 
There is a miscellaneous lot of lines drawn within the square in front of the 
name Stanley Henry Kunz, all of them apparently running at the same angle 
across the square. There does not appear to be any pen stroke running 
diagonally across any of these first-mentioned strokes that could be considered 
constituting a cross. The whole of these ink lines are blotted and inter¬ 
mingled. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 5 for identification in the fourth precinct of the seventeenth ward for 
the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objection, 
and for the further reason that there appears a cross in the party circle of the 
Republican column, thereby indicating that the voter intended to vote the 
straight Republican ticket, including Dan Parrillo, candidate for Representative 
in Congress from the eighth congressional district, and that some person or 
persons other than the legal voter, after the polls were closed and during the 
counting of the ballots in the polling place, placed a scroll in the square before 
the name Stanley Henry Kunz, wrongfully and illegally, and that said scroll 
indicates the intention of depriving contestat, Dan Parrillo, of the ballot; and 
contestant further contends and claims that this ballot should be counted for 
contestant, Dan Parrillo, as candidate for the office of Representative in Con¬ 
gress from tlie eighth congressional district, and the same should be deducted 
from the total of Stanley Henry Kunz in the fourth precinct of the seventeenth 
ward. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. In your description of the ballot, Mr. Rounds, I will ask you further, is 
there not a line or Ikies drawn through the name Dan Parrillo?—A. Yes; these 
miscellaneous marks running out from the squares in front of the name of Dan 
Parrillo and Edward Walz extend out through the name. 

Q. That is, a line running through each name?—A. Intentionally so; yes. 

Mr. Asay. The record may show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
this ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Lundin : 

Q. The scroll appearing in the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
and the so-called line through the name Dan Parrillo, are they of the same 
identical handwriting?—A. As near as I can tell; yes. 

Mr. Asay. That is all. 

Mr. Lundin. In accordance with the stipulation heretofore entered by and 
between the parties to this contest, the five ballots that have been challenged in 
this precinct by contestant will be sealed in an envelope, and the envelope in 
turn will be sealed up in the ballot box, to await any action required by the 
congressional committee, and subject to further inspection by contestee, should 
he so desire. 

At the hour of 3.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 25, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Guy C. Grapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (represent¬ 
ing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the fourth precinct of the seventeenth ward, as made by the board of elec- 


J 


154 * PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 

/ 

tion commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the 
various candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men__124 

Women__._ 49 


Total—_173 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 87 

Women_:_ 52 


Total_139 

Blank votes: 

Men_._ 8 

Women_1_ 9 


Total_ 17 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stcckbridge: 

Men_ 11 

Women_ 0 


Total_ 11 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 230 

Women_110 


Grand total-340 


Five ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be 
sealed in envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

At the hour of 3.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 25, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated, to wit, 
Mr. Lundin. on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, 
on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the con¬ 
testant and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Lundin, testified as follows : 

Q. You are the same Howard A. Rounds who has testified previously as a 
witness in this contest?—A. I am. 

Q. I will ask you, Mr. Rounds, if you have examined any challenged ballots 
in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. Have you marked them for identification in any way?—A. I have. 

Q. How many challenged ballots are there, Mr. Rounds?—A. There are 9. 

Q. In what way have you marked them for identification?—A. I have num¬ 
bered them in the upper right-hand corner No. 1 to and including 9. 

Q. I ask you to take ballot marked “ No. 1,” for identification, and describe 
the markings thereon.—A. Ballot No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot. There are several crosses before the candidates 
names in the Democratic column, and an attempt to make a cross appears be¬ 
fore the name Stanley Henry Kunz. All of these crosses in the Democratic 
column, in my opinion, were made by a different hand than the hand that 
made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 1 for identification in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, 
for the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objec¬ 
tion, and for the further reason that there appears a cross in the circle of 
the Republican Party column at the top of the ballot, thereby indicating that 
the voter intended to vote the straight Republican ticket, including Dan Par¬ 
rillo, cantydate for the office of Representative in Congress from the eighth 
congressional district, and that some person or persons, other than the legal 
voter, wrongfully and illegally placed a scroll in the square in front of the 

* 


























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


155 


name of Stanley Henry Kunz, said scroll being: of a different handwriting than 
that of the cross in the circle of the Republican Party candidates, and con¬ 
testant further contends and claims that this ballot should be counted for 
Dan Parrillo, candidate for Representative in Congress from the eighth con¬ 
gressional district, and that the same should be deducted from the total of 
Stanley Henry Kunz in this precinct. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
the ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, as marked. 

By Mr. Ltjndin : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 for identification, Mr. Rounds.—A. The record 
should show that ballot No. 1 was a woman’s ballot, and that ballot No. 2 
is also a Roman’s ballot, and has a cross in the Republien Party circle at the 
top of the ballot, and has crosses before candidates' names in the Democratic 
column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and that three 
of these crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, one of 
them being before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, were made by one and the 
same hand, but that these three were made by a different hand than the 
hand that made the cross in front of the name Walter J. La Buy, and the 
cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Ltjndin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 2 for identification, in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, for 
the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objections, 
and for the same reasons stated in connection with ballot No. 1 previously 
mentioned, and contestant claims and contends this ballot should be counted for 
Dan Parrillo, candidate for Representative in Congress from the eighth con¬ 
gressional district, and that the same should be deducted from the total count 
of Stanley Henry Kunz in this precinct. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
that this ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 

By Mr. Ltjndin : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 3 for identification, Mr. Rounds.—A. Ballot No. 3 for 
identification is a woman’s ballot and has a cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top of the ballot and has five crosses before candidates’ names in the 
Democratic column, one of which is before the name, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Each of these crosses in the Democratic column was, in my opinion, made by 
a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Ltjndin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 3 for identification, in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, for 
the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objections, and 
for the same reasons stated to the previous two ballots, and contestant further 
contends and claims that this ballot should be counted for Dan Parrillo, candi¬ 
date for the office of Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional 
district, and that the same should be deducted from the total count of Stanley 
Henry Kunz in this precinct. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. So far in these three ballots winch you have described tlie characteristics 
whereby you form your opinion are patent to the naked eye, are they?—A. They 
are. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
and contends that ballot No. 3 for identification should be counted for Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Ltjndin : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 for identification.—A. Ballot No. 4 has 10 crosses in 
squares before candidates’ names in the Democratic column, and 4 of these 
crosses, namely, the one in the square before the name Stanley Henry Kunz, 
the one in the square before the name Joseph Petlak, the one in the square 
before the name Joseph A. Traiulel, and the one in the square before the name 
James Hamilton Lewis, were, in my opinion, made by one and the same hand, 
and that the other crosses on the ballot were made by a different hand. There 
are no crosses in the party circles at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Ltjndin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 4 for identification, in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, for 
the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any of his other objec- 


156 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


tions, and contestant contends and claims that this ballot should be a blank 
in so far as the candidates for the office of Representative in Congress from the 
eighth congressional district are concerned, and that the same should not he 
counted for either of the parties to this contest. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
and contends that ballot No. 4 for identification should be counted for Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Those characteristics that you have described, Mr. Rounds, whereby you 
differentiate between the crosses, are apparent to the naked eye, are they?— 
A. They are. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Ltjndin : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 5 for identification?—A. Ballot No. 5 for identification 
has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and is 
a man’s ballot. There is a cross in the square in front of the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz, which cross, in my opinion, was made by the same hand that made 
the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of pie ballot. There are 
four other crosses before candidates’ names in the Democratic column of this 
ballot, which four crosses were made by a different hand than the hand that 
made the first two mentioned crosses on the ballot. 

Mr ; Ltjndin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 5 for identification, in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, for 
the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any of his other objec¬ 
tions, and for the further reason that there appears a cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot, thereby indicating that the voter intended 
to vote the straight Republican ticket, including Dan Parrillo, candidate for 
the office cf representative in Congress from the eighth congressional district, 
and that some person or persons, other than the legal voter, after the polls were 
clofeed and while the ballots were being counted in the polling place, wrong¬ 
fully and illegally, placed a purported cross before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz, and contestant further claims and contends that this ballot should be 
counted for Dan Parrillo, candidate for the office of representative in Congress 
from the eighth congressional district, and that the same should be deducted 
from the total count of Stanley Henry Kunz in the third precinct of the seven¬ 
teenth ward. 

Re-recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, did you testify, did I understand you correctly, that in your 
opinion the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot was 
made by the same hand that made the cross in the square in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. That was my testimony. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and contends that ballot No. 5 for identification should be-*counted for 
Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Ltjndin : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you have examined the crosses that you have just described, 
have you?—A. I have. 

Q. In how many different handwritings do you find these crosses?—A. Two. 

Q. Have you examined the cross in the square in front of the name of Stanley 
Henry Kunz?—A. I have. 

Q. Is there a slight variation between that cross and the cross in the party 
circle of the Republican candidates?—A. There is. 

Re-recross examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. But you are still of the opinion that the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot and the cross in the square in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz were made by the same hand, are you not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Ltjndin : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 6 for identification, the markings you find thereon, Mr. 
Rounds.—A. Ballot No. 6 has a cross, made in ink, in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot. There are six crosses before candidate’s names 
in the Democrattic columns, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz. All of these crosses in the Democratic column were made with pencii, 
and apparently have a different construction than the cross which was made 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


157 


id ink in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and in my opinion 
was made by a different hand. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges bal¬ 
lot No. 6 for identification, in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, for the 
reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving his other objections, and 
for the further reason that there appears a cross in the party circle of the 
Republican candidates, thereby indicating that the voter intended to vote the 
straight Republican ticket, including Dan Parrillo, candidae for Representative 
in Congress from the eighth congressional district, and that some person or per¬ 
sons, after the polls were closed and during the counting of the ballots in the 
polling place, other than the legal voter, wrongfully and illegally, placed a 
pencil mark in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, that said 
Pencil mark is not in the same handwriting as the cross in the Republican Party 
circle at the top of the ballot, which cross is in ink, and contestant further con¬ 
tends and claims that this ballot should be counted for Dan Parrillo, candidate 
for the office of Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional dis¬ 
trict, and that the same should be deducted from the total of Sanley Henry 
Kunz in this precinct. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims and 
. contends that ballot No. 6 for identification should be counted for Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

By Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Describe the ballot marked No. 7 for identification. Mr. Rounds.—A. 
Ballot No. 7 has a cross in pencil in the Republican Party circle at the top of 
the ballot. This ballot is a man’s ballot. There are numerous crosses before 
various candidate’s names in both the Democratic and the Republican columns 
down to Representative for Congress. In my opinion all of these crosses down 
this far on the ballot were made by one and the same hand. There is a cross 
in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, and there are numerous 
other crosses before various candidates on both the Republican and the Demo¬ 
cratic columns from there down on the ballot, and in my opinion all of these 
crosses, including the one in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz, from there to the bottom of the ballot, were made by one and the same 
hand, but by a different hand than the hand that made the cross above the. 
“Representative for Congress ” in the two columns, and the one in the Republi¬ 
can Party circle at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant,- Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 7, for identification, in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, 
for the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waving any other objections, 
and desires the record to show that an examination of all these ballots shows 
conclusively that they have been tampered with and that fraud has been par¬ 
ticipated in by some person or persons other than the legal voters, and con¬ 
testant claims and contends that this ballot should be counted for Dan Parrillo, 
candidate for the office of Representative in Congress from the eighth con¬ 
gressional district, and that the same should be deducted from the total count 
of Stanley Henry Kunz in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and contends that ballot No. 7 for identification should be counted for 
Stanley Henry Kunz, as marked. 

By Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Describe the markings on ballot No. 8, for identificataion, Mr. Rounds.—■ 
A. Ballot No. 8 is a man’s ballot; it doesn’t have any crosses in the party circles 
at the top of the ballot. There is a cross before every one of the Republican 
electors’ names and there are four crosses made in ink before Democratic 
candidates’ names, one of which, appears before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. 
In my opinion all of these ink crosses were made by one and the same hand. 
There appear two crosses made with lead pencil, one of which is in the square 
before the name Joseph Petlak and one of which is in the square before the 
name Joseph A. Trandel, which are an entirely different kind of a cross, be¬ 
sides the fact that they are made by lead pencil while all the other crosses on 
the ballot were made in ink. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo. challenges 
ballot No. 8, for identification, in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, 
for the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waving any other objections, 
and contestant contends and claims that this ballot should be a blank and not 


158 


PARE ILL 0 VS. KUNZ. 


counted for either of the parties to this contest so far as the candidates for the 
office, of Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional district are 
concerned. 

Re-recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. The cross in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz and the 
crosses before the electors are all in ink, are they not, Mr. Rounds?—A. They are. 

Q. All made by the same persons, were they not?—A. In my opinion, yes. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and contends that ballot No. 8, for identification, should be counted for 
Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record further show that contestant, Dan Parillo, con¬ 
tends and claims that this ballot should not be counted for either party so far 
as candidates for Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional dis¬ 
trict are concerned, and that the same should be deducted from the total count 
of Stanley Henry Kunz in this precinct. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Describe the markings on ballot No. 9 for identification, Mr. Rounds.— 
A. Ballot No. 9 has no crosses in the party circles at the top of the ballot. 
It is a man’s ballot. There are two lead-pencil circles drawn, one before the 
name Warren G. Harding and one before, just a little bit above, the name 
Calvin Coolidge. Each of these pencil circles contain a cross made with lead 
pencil. There are crosses before nearly half of the candidates’ names in the 
Republican column and about a half dozen crosses before candidates’ names 
in th Democratic column. These crosses in the Democratic column were made 
by different hands, the cross in the square in front of the name Joseph Petlak 
and the cross in the square in front of the name Joseph A. Trandel having 
been made by a different hand than any other cross on the ballot. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 9 for identification, in the third precinct of the seventeenth ward, for 
the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objections, and 
contestant contends that this ballot should be a blank in so far as the candi¬ 
dates for Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional district are 
concerned, for the reasons specified to previous ballots, and the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo, further contends and claims that this ballot should not have been 
counted for contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, and that the same should be 
deducted from his total in this precinct. 

Re-recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, have you examined these two crosses that are put in the 
two pencil circles at the top of the ballot, compared with the cross in the square 
in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. I have. 

Q. Were they, or were they not, made by the same hand, in your opinion, Mr. 
Rounds?—A. I think they were; yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and contends that ballot No. 9 for identification should be counted for 
Stanley Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that in accordance with the stipulation and 
procedure heretofore had, these nine challenged ballots will be sealed in an 
envelope and that the envelope in turn will be seaed in the ballot box and 
that the same will be placed in the custody of the Board of Election Com¬ 
missioners to await any action required by the congressional committee and 
subject to further inspection by contestee, should he so desire. 

At the hour of 4 o’clock p. m. same day, May 25, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had: 

Present: Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (represent¬ 
ing Mr. Frank L). Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William 
C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the third precinct of the seventeenth ward as made by the board of election 
commissioners shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidate* • 



PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


159 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_110 

Women___ 65 


Total_181 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 72 

Women_._ 40 


Total_112 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 10 

Women_ 5 


Total_u.___ 15 • 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 7 

Women_ 3 


Total___ 10 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men __ r _205 

Women_113 


Grand total_--318 


Five ballots challenged by contestant not counted for either party to be sealed 
in envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. in. May 26, 
1921.) 

May 26, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m. May 26, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet 
(representing Mr. Frank D. Ayers) on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Brouielet. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpeena the 
board of election commissioners and the clerk of said board of election com¬ 
missioners have produced a ballot box which is marked the “ sixth precinct 
of the seventeenth ward.” 

It has in the blanks provided therefor the following words and figures: 

Democratic, men’s_ 73 

Republican: 

Men’s-- 55 

Women’s-.- ; - 9 

No men’s socialist. These figures are rather indistinct. In the blanks pro¬ 
vided for the signatures of the judges of election are the names of three indi¬ 
viduals. The box itself is partly sprung open. It is not sealed and the flaps 
are not gummed, and the cover is loosely placed over the contents of the box. 
There are some strings tied around it, but in a very loose condition. 

The poll book on the cover thereof states that it is the poll book of the sixth 
precinct of the seventeenth ward, and has the following: 


Number of men voters- 

Number of women voters-312 

Total_333 

96674—22-11 





































160 PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 

I 

It contains the usual printed certificate on the inside of the cover, the certifi¬ 
cate reciting that it was an election held in the sixth precinct of the seventeenth 
ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of John Moczewski, No. 
1402 Cornell Street. 

In the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election there are the 
names of three individuals and in the places provided for the signatures of the 
clerks of election there appear the names of two individuals. An inspection of 
the said poll book shows the names of 334 persons as having voted at the said 
election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots contained therein, 
the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m., same 
day, May 26, 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 26, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, namely: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; 
Mr. Lundin, appearing for Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (on behalf of Mr. Frank D. 
Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf 
of the contestee, Stanley Henry Ivunz. 

FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Lundin, testified as follows: 

Q. You are the same Howard A. Rounds who has previously testified as a 
witness in this contest, are you?—A. I am. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I will ask you if you have examined any challenged ballots 
in the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. How many challenged ballots have you examined in this precinct?—A. Six. 

Q. I will ask you to mark them for identification, if you have not already 
done so, Mr. Rounds.—A. I have marked them. 

Q. In what way have you marked them for identification?—A. I have marked 
these ballots in the upper right-hand corner with the numerals 1 to and includ¬ 
ing 6, and I will pin them together with a piece of paper, with a pin pinning 
all six ballots together in one group. 

Q. I will ask you to examine the back of ballot No. 1, for identification, in 
the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward, and read the writing into the 
record.—A. There is writing in pencil just above the word “ Woman’s,” which 
is apparently “ Men.” There is a pencil line drawn through the word 

Woman’s.” 

By Mr. Asay : 

Q. That “Men” is one word, is it?—A. Yes, sir. That is true on all six 
ballots. 

By Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Is the writing the same on all six ballots, the word “ Men,” Mr. Rounds?— 
A. All but ballot No. 3, which is apparently written by another hand. 

Q. I will ask you to examine the initials on these ballots, Mr. Rounds.—A. 
They are all the same initials with the exception of ballot No. 3. 

Q. I will ask you to compare the writing in the initials with the word “ Man ” 
appearing before the printed word “ Women,” and I will ask you to compare 
the writing and see if it is the same handwriting. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that Mr. Rounds is not certain. 

Mr. Asay. No ; let him answer. 

Mr. Lundin. All right; read the question to the witness. 

(Question read.) 

A. The initials being so much larger and all being caps, while in the word 
“ Man ” there is only one capital letter and the other letters are two small 
letters, and it is difficult to make a comparison that would be dependable. 

Mr. Lundin. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay: 

Q. Have you got any opinion about it, Mr. Rounds, however slight?—A. Do 
you want me to guess at it? 

Q. Yes, sir; I am willing to take your guess. 

Mr. Lundin. I object to any guesswork. 






PAR RILL 0 VS. KUNZ. 


161 


By Mr. Asay: 

Q. You testified yesterday, Mr, Rounds, that you hadn’t an exact opinion, but 
that you had a strong impression on a certain piece of work. Now, would you 
kindly give us your impression, if you dont’ object, to those six ballots? 

Mr. Lundin. He has stated he can not tell the distinction. 

A. I don’t know that I care to answer by giving my impression. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the witness doesn’t care to answer. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that Mr. Rounds has expressed his opinion 
based on his experience. 

Mr. Asay. Let me ask him a question now. 

Q. There is one ballot, ballot No. 3, have you got any opinion as to whether 
this word man ” written on the back of No. 3 is the same writing as the 
initials are?—A. There are some things about the word “ man ” and the initials 
that are scratched out that are similar. The character of the pencil seems to 
be identically the same. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, chal¬ 
lenges the 6 ballots of the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward, for the rea¬ 
sons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objections, and con¬ 
testant further claims and contends that these 6 ballots should not be counted 
for either party as candidates for Representative in Congress from the eighth 
congressional district; that they should be a blank in so far as the candi¬ 
dates for Congress are concerned, for the reasons already stated. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contest.ee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
claims and contends that these 6 ballots, each and every one of them, should 
be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, on the ground that they show on the back 
of them, and the record itself discloses, that these ballots wire marked by 
the judges; that apparently, having run out of men’s ballots, they used women’s 
ballots. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that the writing of the judges’ initials on 
the back of the ballots are not identical, and the expert, Mr. Rounds, has failed 
to identify them as such. 

Also let the record show that in accordance with the stipulation heretofore 
entered into and procedure had, these 6 ballots that have been challenged by 
the contestant will be sealed in an envelope and the envelope in turn sealed 
in the ballot box, and the ballot box returned to the custody of the board of 
election commissioners to await any action required by the congressional com¬ 
mittee, and subject to further inspection by the contestee, should he so de¬ 
sire. 

At the hour of 2.30 o’clock p. m., same day, May 26, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 


HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the con¬ 
testant and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Lundin, testified as follows: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you are the same Howard A. Rounds who testified in regard 
to 6 challenged ballots in the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward a few 
minutes ago, are you?—A. I am. 

Q. Have you examined any further challenged ballots in the fifth precinct 
of the seventeenth ward, Mr. Rounds?—A. I have. 

Q. How many additional challenged ballots have you examined m this pre¬ 
cinct and ward?—A. Four. 

q Have you marked them for identification?—A. I have. 

o' What identification marks have you placed upon them?—A. I have placed 
a numeral in the upper right-hand corner of these ballots from No. 1 to and 
including No. 4. 1 will pin the ballots together with a pin, fastening to them a 

niece of paper on which is marked “ No. 2.” 

O. I will ask you to describe ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2. in the fifth precinct 
of the seventeenth ward, and explain and describe the markings on that ballot. 

A. Ballot No. 1 of Group No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top of the ballot and has numerous other crosses in the body of the Democratic 
column, one of which crosses appears in the square in front of the name “ Stanley 


H In*mv^ opinion the cross in the square in front of the name “ Stanley Henry 
Kunz is in a different hand than the hand that made the cross in the Repub¬ 
lican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 


162 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ 


Q. Describe ballot No. 3 of this group.—A. Ballot No. 3 has a cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot and there is a cross before the 
name Len Small, which is made in lead pencil. The cross in the Republican 
Party circle at the top of the ballot is in ink. There are other crosses in the 
Democratic column, one of which is in the square in front of the name “ Stanley 
Henry Kunz,” which cross is also in ink. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Is the cross made by a different person, in your opinion, than the one that 
made the cross in the circle?—A. It is made by the same person. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Is there any distinction between these crosses as to form, Mr. Rounds?—A. 
There is slightly, but not so that it would be by a different hand. 

Q. So far as your vision is concerned, that might have been made by a dif¬ 
ferent person ? 

(The question was objected to and withdrawn.) 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballots Nos. 1 and 3 of Group No. 2 in the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward, 
for the reasons stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objections, and for 
the further reason there appears a cross in the party circle at the top of the 
Republican column, indicating that the voter intended to vote the straight 
Republican ticket, including Dan Parrillo, candidate for the office of Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress from the eighth congressional district, and that some per¬ 
son or persons other than the legal voter, after the polls were closed and during 
the counting of the ballots in the polling place, wrongfully and illegally placed a 
cross in the square before the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz,” said cross being, in 
ballot No. 1, of a different character and handwriting and in ballot No. 3 being 
of a different character and handwriting, and the contestant claims and con¬ 
tends that these ballots should be counted for Dan Parrillo, candidate for the 
office of Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional district, and 
deducted from the total of Stanley Henry Kunz in said precinct. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that 1 ‘ontestee. Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
and contends that these two ballots should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz. 

By Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Describe ballot No. 2 of this group.—A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross before all 
of the Democratic electors and about half and half of the Republican and Demo¬ 
cratic candidates throughout the body of the ballot. Each of these crosses, with 
the exception of four or live crosses at the bottom, are double, in that they were 
made both with ink and with pencil. A few crosses at the bottom that are not 
double are made in ink. The cross in front of the name “ Stanley Henry Kunz ” 
is made both in pencil and in ink. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. How are the crosses before the electors?—A. They are made in ink and 
in pencil. 

Q. The same as before the name Stanley Henry Kunz?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot JS T o. 3 in the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward for the reasons already 
stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objection, and contestant con¬ 
tends and claims that the ballot should be a blank in so far as the candidates 
for Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional district are con¬ 
cerned, and that this ballot should be deducted from the total of Stanley Henry 
Kunz in this precinct, being the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Lundins 

Q. Describe ballot No. 4 of this group.—A. Ballot No. 4 has a cross before 
the name Warren G. Harding, but no cross in the party circle at the top of 
the ballot. There is a cross in the square before the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz, and a cross in the square before the name John Kozinski. In my opinion 
the cross before the name Warren G. Harding and the cross in the square before 
the name John Kozinski were made by the same hand, but by a different hand 
than the hand that made the cross in the square before the name Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 4 for identification in the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward 
for the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any objection. 







parrillo vs. kunz. 


163 


and contestant contends and claims that this ballot should be a blank and 
not counted for either party so far as the candidates for the office of Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress from the eighth congressional district are concerned, and 
contestant further contends and claims that this ballot should be deducted 
from the total of Stanley Henry Kunz in til's precinct. 

Mr. As ay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, 
contends and claims that this ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry 
Kunz, on the ground stated, among other things by my friend, and that the 
cross appearing before the name Warren G. Harding is an illegal cross. 

Re-redirect examination by Mr. Lnudin : 

Q. I will ask you to mark this ballot for identification, Mr. Rounds. Have 
you marked this ballot for identification?—A. I have. 

Q. Describe the manner in which you have marked it for identification?—A. 
I have marked it ballot A. 

Q- I will ask you if you have examined the challenged ballot marked A 
for identification in the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward, Mr. Rounds?— 
A. I have. The “A” is in the extreme upper righthand corner in lead pencil. 

Q. Explain the markings on this ballot, Mr. Rounds.—A. There is a cross in 
the Democratic Party circle at the top of the ballot and no other crosses on 
the ballot. The word “ Hurrah ” is written in lead pencil just above the 
Democratic Party circle and under the word “Hurrah” are drawn three lines 
in lead pencil. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot marked “ A ” for identification in the fifth precinct of the seventeenth 
ward, for the reasons already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other 
objection, and for the further reason that the description of the word “ Hur¬ 
rah ” constitutes a distinguishing and identification mark and for that reason 
invalidates the ballot, and contestant claims and contends that this ballot should 
not be counted for either party as candidates for the office of Representative 
in Congress from the eighth congressional district for the reasons already 
stated by Mr. Rounds, and that the same should lie deducted from the total of 
Stanley Henry Kunz in this precinct, it being a blank in so far as the candi¬ 
dates for the office of Representative in Congress from the eighth congressional 
district are concerned. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
and contends that the ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, and 
that there is no identification mark on it. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that in accordance with the stipulation 
heretofore entered into and procedure had, these 5 ballots, namely, ballots Nos. 
1, 2, 3, 4, and “ A ” for identification, that have been challenged by the contestant, 
will be sealed in an envelope and the envelope in turn sealed in the ballot box 
and the ballot box placed in the custody of the board of election commissioners 
to await any action required by the congressional committee and subject to 
further inspection by the contestee, should he so desire. 

At the hour of 3 o’clock p. in., same day, May 26, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS was recalled as a witness on behalf of the contestant 
and, being further examined in chief by Mr. Lundin, testified as follows: 

Q. You are the same Howard A. Rounds who has previously testified as a 
witness in this contest, are you?—A. I am. 

Q. I will ask you, Mr. Rounds, if you have examined any challenged ballots 
in the sixth precinct of the seventeenth ward?—A. I have. 

Q. I will ask you to place identification marks on these ballots?—A. I have. 

Q. What identification marks have you placed on them?—A. I have put the 
figure No. 1 and the figure No. 2, respectively, in the upper-right hand corner 
of these two ballots. 

Q. Mr. Rounds, I will ask you to examine ballot marked “ No. 1 ” for identifi¬ 
cation and explain and describe the markings on that ballot?—A, Ballot No. 1 
has a cross in front of the name Eugene V. Debs and a cross in front of the 
name Seymour Stedman, but there are no crosses in the party circle at the top 
of the ballot. There are crosses in front of every Democratic elector and about 
nine-tenths of the names in the Democratic column. There are three crosses 
before candidates’ names in the Republican column. There is a cross in the 


164 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz, which appears to be a different 
cross than all of the crosses in the Democratic column, but it seems to be the 
same cross as the cross before the name Seymour Stedman. 

Q. How many different handwritings are these crosses in, Mr. Rounds?—A. 
Two. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, chal¬ 
lenges this ballot in the sixth precinct of the seventeenth ward, for the reasons 
already stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any other objection, and for the 
further reason that the marks described by Mr. Rounds before the names, 
Eugene V. Debs and Seymour Stedman, are illegal crosses, and that this ballot 
should not be counted for either party in the eighth congressional district, and 
is a blank, in so far as these candidates are concerned, and that this ballot 
should be deducted from the total of Stanley Henry Kunz in this precinct. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. Mr. Rounds, you have testified that, in your opinion, the cross in the 
square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz and the one before the name 
Seymour Stedman were made by the same person.—A. I have. 

Q. How about Eugene V. Debs and Seymour Stedman; how does the cross 
before the name Eugene V. Debs compare with the cross before the name 
Seymour Stedman; would you say that they were made by different persons? 
I am only asking you as to those tw r o crosses.—A. Yes. 

Q. You think they were made by different persons?—A I think the one in 
front of the name Eugene V Debs was made by the same hand that made the 
majority of the crosses in the Democratic column. 

Q. And you think that the cross in front of the name Seymour Stedman was 
made by the same hand that made the cross in the square in front of the name 
Stanley Henry Kunz; do you?—A Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay ; Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, claims 
and contends that this ballot marked “ No. 1 ” for identification in the sixth pre¬ 
cinct of the seventeenth ward, should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, as 
marked. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Lundin : 

Q. Describe the markings on ballot marked “ No. 2 ” for identification, Mr. 
Rounds.—A. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the 
top of the ballot, and has crosses before all but four or five candidates’ names 
in the Democratic column. There are no other crosses on the ballot. The cross 
in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz is a distinctly different 
cross than any other cross upon the ballot. In my opinion, the cross in the 
Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and all of the crosses except 
the one in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz were made by 
one and the same hand. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that the contestant, Dan Parrillo, challenges 
ballot No. 2 of the sixth precinct of the seventeenth ward for the reasons already 
stated by Mr. Rounds, not waiving any ether objection, and for the further reason 
that there appears a cross in the circle of the Republican Party candidates, 
thereby indicating that the voter intended to vote the straight Republican ticket, 
including Dan Parrillo, candidate for the office of Representative in Congress 
from the eighth congressional district, the cross appearing in the square in front 
of the name Stanley Henry Kunz being in a different handwriting than the cross 
in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot, and contestant further 
contends and claims that this ballot was wrongfully and illegally counted for 
Staney Henry Kunz, and that the same should be deducted from his total in this 
precinct and added to that of Dan Parrillo, candidate for Representative in Con¬ 
gress from the eighth congressional district. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz, contends 
and claims that this ballot No. 2 for identification should be counted for Stanley 
Henry Kunz as cast and marked. 

Mr. Lundin. Let the record show that in accordance with the stipulation here¬ 
tofore entered into and procedure had these two ballots for identification that 
have been challenged by the contestant will be sealed in an envelope and the 
envelope in turn sealed in the ballot box, and the ballot box placed in the custody 
of the board of election commissioners to await any action required by the con¬ 
gressional committee and subject to further inspection by the contestee, should 
he so desire. 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


165 


At the hour of 3 o’clock p. m. same day, May 2G, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had: ( 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (repre¬ 
senting Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 


FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 


Mr. Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties thereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the fifth precinct of the seventeenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 122 

Women_ 60 


Total__ 1S2 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 55 

Women_ 26 


Total_ 81 


Blank votes: 


Men_/._:_ v 14 

Women_ 15 

Total_ 29 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


12 

5 


Total 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


203 

106 


Grand total-- 

Eleven ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be 
sealed in envelope, then sealed in the ballot box. 

At the hour of 3.05 o’clock p. m., same day, May 26, 1921, the following pro- 

were had : ^ 

Present* Guv C. Crapple, commissioner; Mr. Hector A. Brouillet (represent¬ 
ing Mr. Frank D. Ayers), on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William 
C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 


SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr Brouillet. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the sixth precinct of the seventeenth ward as made by the board of elect.on 
commissioners ^hows the following vote to have been received by the various 

candidates: 


Ballets cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


127 

78 


___ 205 

Total_ _ 




































166 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


y 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 


Men_ 72 

Women_ 27 


Total 


99 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 4 

Women___ 1 


Total_ 5 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 12 

Women_ 2 


Total_ 14 


Total number cf ballots cast: 

Men_ 215 

Women_ 108 


Grand total___ 323 


Two ballots challenged by contestant, not counted for either party, to be sealed 
in envelope, then sealed in ballot box. 

STIPULATION. 

It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to this contest, through 
their respective attorneys, that this hearing should now be continued until the 
13tli day of June, A. D. 1921, and that the said period of adjournment is not to 
be taken or charged against either contestee or contestant, as to their time. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the 13th day of June, A. D. 
1921, at the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m.) 

June 13, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., June 13, 1921. pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, appearing on behalf of the contestee. 

SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. In response to a subpoena duces tecum the election commissioners 
and chief clerk of the board of election commissioners have produced a ballot 
box marked the “ Seventh precinct of the seventeenth ward,” containing the fig¬ 
ures 182 men under the number of candidates voted, and women 380, apparently 
signed by the names of two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures 
of judges of election. 

The box also contains in pencil the figures “ 7-17,” and the flaps are gummed 
and tied around two ways, and apparently is in good condition and sealed. 

The poll book purports to be the poll book of the seventh precinct of the 
seventeenth ward, and the cover shows the number of men voters, 182; women. 
80; total, 262. 

The inside of the cover shows it is a certificate of an election held in the 
seventh precinct of the seventeenth ward, on the 2d day of November, A. D. 
1920, at the house of Max Pantzky, 1252 West Chicago Avenue, signed by the 
names of three persons in the. blanks provided for the signatures of the judges 
of election and by two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of the 
clerks of election. 

An inspection of the poll book shows that apparently there were 262 persons 
who voted at the said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, the same as you have done, in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


167 


At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., same day, June 13, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the board of election commissioners and the chief clerk have produced a ballot 
box marked the “ Eighth precinct of the seventeenth ward,” and it shows the 
number of voters, as follows: 

Democratic: 


Men_ 34 

Women_.__ 32 

Republican: 

Men_ 74 

Women_ 27 

Solialist: 

Men_«_ 6 

Women_ ^ 1 


signed by the names of three individuals in the blanks provided for the signa¬ 
tures of judges of election. In pencil is marked “ 8-17,” and neither flap of the 
box is sealed, but the box is tied around two ways with a rope which is not 
sealed. 

The poll book presented by said board of election commissioners is apparently 
the poll book of the eighth precinct of the seventeenth ward and shows the 
following number of votes: 


Men- 194 

Women_ 74 

Total_268 


On the inside of the cover is a certificate reciting that an election was held 
in the eighth precinct of the seventeenth ward on the 2d day of November, A. D. 
1920, signed in the blanks provided for the signatures of the judges of election 
by three individuals and in the blanks provided for the signatures of the clerks 
of election by two individuals. 

An inspection of the poll book shows the names of 2<1 persons as having 
voted at said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m., same day, June 13, 1921, the following 

proceedings were had. " / .• ' 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, appearing on behalf of the contestant. Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, appearing on behalf of the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

NINTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum the hoard of election commissioners and the chief clerk of the said board 
of electtion commissioners have produced a ballot box marked “ Ninth precinct 
of election commissioners have produced a ballot box marked “ Ninth precinct 
246 ; women’s, 89.” Under the blank “ Socialist ” appears : 

“ Socialist: Men’s, 13; women’s, none,” apparently signed by three naipes 
in the blank provided for, to be signed by the judges and clerks of election. 

The ballot box is gummed, the flaps are gummed, and the ballot box is tied 
both ways by rope. On the outside thereof is contained figuies 9—17, 
and the poll book is entitled “Ninth precinct, seventeenth ward,” showing the 
number of men voters to be 250, with 85 women voters, making a total of 33a. 

Inside the cover the certificate shows that it is of the election held in the 
ninth precinct, seventeenth ward, on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house 
of Louie Bunnan, 905 North Racine Avenue, and is signed in the blanks pro¬ 
vided for by the signatures of three judges of election and by the signatures of 
two clerks of election. 












168 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


An inspection of the said poll book shows the number of voters at said pre¬ 
cinct, at said election, to have been 335. 

There is also a package wrapped up in heavy brown paper, somewhat torn,, 
which package contains ballots or purported ballots, as marked on the outside, 
“ &-17.” 

It is tied with a double rope going both ways around the package, which rope 
is not sealed. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 12 o’clock in., same day, June 13, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the seventh precinct of the seven¬ 
teenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 


candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 96 

Women_ 45 

Total_141 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 70 

Women_ 26 

Total_ 96 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 4 

Women_ 9 

Total_ 13 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_•_ 11 

Women_ 1 

/ *■ ■ “• 

Total_ 12 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 181 

Women_ 81 

Grand total_262 


At the hour of 12.15 o’clock p. m., same day, June 13, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the 
contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

* NINTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the ninth precinct of the seven¬ 
teenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various can¬ 
didates : 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 


Men_ 127 

Women_ 49 

Total___176 



































PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


169 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 91 

Women___ 32 


Total_ 123 


Blank votes: 


Men—_ 10 

Women_ 4 


Total_ 14 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 11 

Women_ 3 


Total 


14 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men- 239 

Women_ 88 


Grand total_ 327 

At the hour of 12.45 o’clock p. m., same day, June 13, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant. Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Ivunz 

EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 


Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the eighth precinct of the 
seventeenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the 
various candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 95 

Women__ 37 


Total_ 132 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 87 

Women_ 24 


Total_ 111 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 9 

Women_ 7 


Total_ 16 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 6 

Women_ 2 


Total_ S 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_i- 197 

Women_ 70 


Grand total- 267 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. m., June 
14, 1921.) 


















































170 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


.Tune 14, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., June 34, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, namely, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the 
contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

TWENTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and chief clerk of the election board have presented 
a ballot box marked the “ Twenty-second precinct of the seventeenth ward,” of 
an election held on November 2, 1920. On the box appear the names of three per¬ 
sons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election, and the 
words and figures “ 321, total.” The box also bears the mark “ 22-17.” 

The flaps are ungummed, and the box is tied both ways by a rope. 

The poll book presented shows that it is the poll book of the twenty-second 
precinct of the seventeenth ward, and in the blanks provided for the number 
of men voters are the figures “ 214,” and in the blanks provided for the number 
of women voters are the figures “ 107 ” and the total “ 321.” 

On the inside of the cover is a certificate that it was an election held on 

the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of-, 1458 West Chicago 

Avenue, signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of judges of election and by one person in the blank provided for the 
signatures of clerks of election. 

You may open the ballot box and count the ballots, as you have done in the 
previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 12 o’clock noon, the same day, June 14, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

TWENTIETH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

In response to a subpoena duces tecum, the election commissioners and chief 
clerk of the election board have presented a ballot box marked the “ Twentieth 
precinct of the seventeenth ward,” and on the face of said box it shows the 
signatures of two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of the 
judges of election, and bears this notation in ink on the outside: “ This box 
contains judicial ballots, proposition ballots, and part candidates’ ballots.” The 
flaps on the box are properly sealed and gummed, and the box is roped together 
both ways and bears the figures “ 20-17 ” on the outside. 

The poll book presented shows it to be the poll book of the twentieth precinct 
of the seventeenth ward, and on the outside shows the number of men voters 
as 281; women voters, 119; total, 400. 

The certificate on the inside shows an election was held in the twentieth 
precinct of the seventeenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house 
of Anton A. Pociask, 1367 West Chicago Avenue, and there appears in the blanks 
provided for the signatures of judges of election the names of two persons, and 
the names of two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures for clerks 
of election. 

An inspection of the poll book discloses the names and addresses of 400 per¬ 
sons as having voted at said election. 

There is also in this precinct a package which is wrapped up in heavy paper 
and a newspaper. It is tied around in three different ways by a large rope 
and on the outside of this package are the words “ Candidates’ ballots ” and the 
signatures of three judges. 

You may proceed to open and count the ballots the same as you have done in 
previous precincts. 

At the hour of 12.15 o’clock p. m. same day, June 14, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the 
contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

TWENTIETH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the twentieth precinct of the 
seventeenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 




PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


171 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men- 160 

Women_ 72 


Total_ 232 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_;_ 92 

Women__;_ 37 


Total_ 129 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 9 

Women_ 5 


Total_ 14 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men___ 18 

Women_,___:_ 4 


Total_ 22 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men__ 279 

Women_ 118 


Grand total_ 397 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 3 o’clock p. m. 
same day, June 14, 1921.) 

The parties met at 1.30 o’clock p. m., the same day, June 14, 1921, the same 
parties being present, to wit: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant; 
Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

TWENTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

HOWARD A. ROUNDS, a witness called on behalf of the contestant, having 
heretofore been duly sworn and examined in said contest, was further examined 
in chief by Mr. Ayers, and testified as follows: 

Q. Mr. Rounds, have you examined the two women’s ballots that have been 
challenged in this precinct?—A. I have. 

Q. Is there a cross in the square in front of the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
on each of the ballots?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you state whether or not these crosses were made by one and the same 
hand or by a different hand?—A. I can. 

Q. Were they made by the same hand that put the cross in the circle at the 
top"of the ballot or by a'different hand?—A. A different hand. 

Q. You may describe the ballots and their markings.—A. These ballots are 
identified by a number in the upper right-hand corner in lead pencil, Nos. 1 
and 2. The two ballots are pinned together by pinning on a piece of paper 
on which is the figure 2 and the twenty-second precinct of the seventeenth ward. 
Bailot No. 1 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the ballot. 
It has numerous crosses in the' squares in front of candidates’ names in the 
Democratic column, one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In 
my opinion these crosses in the Democratic column were not made by the same 
hand that made the cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of the 
ballot. Ballot No. 2 has a cross in the Republican Party circle at the top of 
the ballot, and has numerous crosses before Democratic candidates’ names, 
one of which is before the name Stanley Henry Kunz. In my opinion all of the 
crosses on ballot No. 2 except one before the name of Mathias Allei weie made 
by one and the same hand, the cross before the name of Mathias Aller being 
made by the same person who made the cross in the Republican Party circle 
at the top of the ballot. In my opinion the cross before the name of Stanley 
Henry Kunz on ballot No. 2 was made by the same person who made all of the 
crosses in the body of the ballot in ballot No. 1. 































172 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


Mr. Ayers. The contestant challenges the two ballots just testified to by 
Mr. Rounds on the ground that they were both voted by the legal voter by plac¬ 
ing a cross in the circle at the head of the Republican column, and thereby 
voting the straight. Republican ticket, but after the polls were closed and the 
ballots removed from the ballot box and during the period of counting the 
ballots in the polling place, these ballots were unlawfully marked by some one 
other than the voter by placing marks in front of the name Stanley Henry 
Kunz, the cont.estee, and that these ballots were wrongfully and unlawfully 
counted for Stanley Henry Kunz, when they should have been counted for 
Dan Parrillo, and we ask now that they be counted for Dan Parrillo. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Asay : 

Q. You testified that the crosses made before the name Stanley Henry Kunz 
on ballot No. 1 and the cross before the name of Stanley Henry Kunz in the 
square on ballot No. 2 were made by one and the same person; is that your 
testimony?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the only data that you can bring the record to bear on that is 
merely on the two crosses, is it not?—A. No; but in the similarity of these two 
crosses and other crosses on the ballots. 

Q. I am not asking you that. I am asking you simply to confine your testi¬ 
mony, as you have sworn that in your opinion the cross before the name Stan¬ 
ley Henry Kunz in ballot No. 1 was made by the same person who made the 
cross before the name Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 3, and you base your 
opinion that it was not made by two persons by a comparison of the two 
crosses.—A. No ; not solely. 

Q. How would a comparison with the other crosses on the ballot aid you to 
determine whether some man made the other two crosses on that ballot?— 
A. The same general characteristics running through a series of crosses may 
show a certain peculiarity in one cross that would not be shown in every one 
of the crosses of the series. 

Q. Did the two crosses look alike to predicate on the crosses before the 
name of Stanley Henry Kunz on each ballot?—A. I wish that I might explain 
that the cross in front of the name of Stanley Henry Kunz on ballot No. 1 has 
been marked over, but that the- 

Q. Pardon me, you mean marked twice?—A. Yes; but that the cross before 
it was marked over the second time is the characteristic that I depend on. 

Q. In other words, whoever made the cross before the name of Stanley 
Henry Kunz on ballot No. 1 used two diagonal strokes of the pencil instead of 
one?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in comparing the crosses on ballot No. 1 with ballot No. 2, you have, 
so far as your mental power goes, disregarded one of those perfect diagonal 
strokes?—A. In a way; yes. 

Q. So that the similarity of a cross is determined on the factor after you 
disregard the fact that there are two diagonals in the first ballot?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. They are both in pencil, and the pencil is light?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it not a fair statement that you predicate your statement on the simi¬ 
larity of the two crosses by always disregarding the second stroke?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. These characteristics that you have just described in these 2 ballots are 
patent to the naked eye?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that contestee claims and contends that both 
of these ballots should be counted for Stanley Henry Kunz as marked. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that these ballots, in accordance with the 
procedure heretofore had, will be sealed in an envelope, the envelope placed in 
the ballot box, and the ballot box in turn will be again sealed and returned 
to the custody of the board of election commissioners to await the action of 
the congressional committee, if it desires, or for the inspection of contestee, 
should he so desire. 

At the hour of 3 o’clock p. m., same day, June 14 ; 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 



PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


173 


TWENTY-SECOND PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the twenty-second precinct of 
the seventeenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the 


various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz : 

Men_152 

Women__ 87 


Total_239 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 46 

Women_i_ 22 


Total_ 68 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 4 

Women_ 3 


Total_ 7 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 2 

Women_ 1 

» - 

Total_ 3 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_204 

Women_113 


Grand total--317 


Two ballots challenged by contestant, not counted by anybody, sealed in 
envelope and then sealed in ballot box. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. in., 
June 15, 1921.) 


June 15, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at 9.30 o’clock a. m., June 15, 1921, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee. 

twelfth precinct of the nineteenth ward. 

Mr. Ayers. By stipulation the following description of the ballot box and 
poll book may be entered of record : 

On the face of the ballot box appears, in part, the following: “Ballots voted 
at the election, Tuesday, November 2, 1920, in the twelfth precinct of the nine¬ 


teenth ward.” 

Number of men voters- 242 

Number of women voters- 75 

Total_ 317 


The statement appears to be signed by one judge only. Both flaps on the 
ballot box are loose. The upper part of the telescopic box extends down from 
the top of the lower part about 4 inches. There is a rope around the box 
four ways. On the end of the box are the figures: “12-19.” On the face of 
the poll book appears the following: “Poll book of the twelfth precinct on 
the nineteenth ward.” 




























174 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


,Men voters_ 24 

Women voters_ 7 

Total_ 317 


Tlie certificate on the inside of the cover recites that an election was held 
at 62G South Racine Avenue. The certificate appears to he signed by two 
clerks only. There appears to be the names and addresses of 317 voters en¬ 
tered in the poll book. You may proceed to open the ballot box and count 
the ballots as you have done in the previous precints. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 9.45 o’clock a. m., same day, June 15, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same parties being present as hereinbefore stated. 

EIGHTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. By stipulation the following description of the ballot box and 
poll book may be entered of record. On the face of the ballot box appears the 
following: “Ballots voted at the election, Tuesday, November 2, 1920, in the 
eighteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward.” 


Men voters_ 172 

Women voters__ 103 


The statement appears to be signed by one of the judges or clerks. On the 
end of the box are the figures: “18-19.” The box is unsealed, apparently— 
tied up with a rope. The poll book states on its face: “ Poll book of the 
eighteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward.” 


Men voters_ 178 

Women voters_:_ 103 


Total _ 281 

The certificate on the inside of the cover recites that an election was held 
at No. 1137 West Taylor Street. The certificate appears to be signed by all 
the judges and clerks. There appears to be the names and addresses of 278 
persons entered in the poll book. You may proceed to open the ballot box 
and count the ballots as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. m., same day, June 15, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had, the same counsel being present as hereinbefore stated. 

NINETEENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. In response to a subpoena duces tecum the election commissioners 
have produced a ballot box purporting to contain the ballots voted at the elec¬ 
tion November 2, 1920, in the nineteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward. 
Number of candidates’ ballots, 199. It is signed by three persons purporting 
to be judges of election and marked on the outside in pencil “ 18-19.” Both 
flaps are gummed and the box is fastened by a rope both ways and the knot 
on the rope is sealed. The poll book produced’ purports to be the poll book of 
the nineteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward and shows the following: 


Number of men voters___150 

Number of women voters_i_49 

Total—-199 


The certificate on the inside of the cover shows that an election was held in 
the nineteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 
1920, at the house of M. Castro, 1241 Taylor Street. It is signed by the names 
of three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of elec¬ 
tion and by two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of clerks 
of election. An inspection of the poll book shows the names of 199 persons 
having voted at said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, the same as 
you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 


o\ 
















PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


175 


At the hour of 11.10 o’clock a. in.^ same day, June 15, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

NINETEENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties through 
their respective attorneys that the recount of the nineteenth precinct of the 
eighteenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 51 

Women_ ; _ 57 


Total__;_108 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_103 

Women_ 32 


Total_135 


Blank votes: 


Men_ 13 

Women_ 9 


Total 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 10 

Women__ 2 


Total_ 12 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_1^7 

Women_190 


Grand total- 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., 
June 16, 1921.) 

At the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m., same day. June 15, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


NINETEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 


Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the nineteenth precinct of the 
seventeenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


80 

48 


Total 


128 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 

Women- 

* Total_ 

96674—22-12 


139 

20 


159 










































176 PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 

Blank votes: 4 

Men_ 16 

Women_ 8 


Total_ 24 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 3 

Women_ 1 


Total_^— 4 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_238 

Women_ 77 


Grand total_315 


At the hour of 11.15 o’clock a. in., same day, June 15, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

NINETEENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the nineteenth precinct of the 
nineteenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_’_ 65 

Women_ 26 


Total- 91 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_—_ 62 

Women_ 16 


Total-—_ 78 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 6 

Women_____ 1 


Total_ 7 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 40 

Women_^_—_ 6 


Total_ 46 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 173 

Women_ 49 


Total_222 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., 
June 23, 1921.) 

At the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m., same day, June 15, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had, the same parties being present: 

STIPULATION. 


It is stipulated and agreed between the parties by their respective attorneys 
that, at the completion of the recount of the nineteenth precinct of the nine¬ 
teenth ward, which is now under way, the said recount will then be adjourned 






































PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


177 * 


until Ihursday, June 23, 1921, at 9.30 o’clock a. in.; that such adjournment, 
and the time consumed thereby, shall not he charged to either contestant or 
contestee, the same being taken for the purpose of ascertaining the exact 
condition of the recount, plus the precincts that have not yet been opened by 
the contestee. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 9.30 o’clock a m. f 
June 23, 1921.) 

June 23. 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m„ June 23, 1921, pursuant to 
adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William G. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the parties 
to this contest, that the following precincts may be opened and counted, the same 
being at the request of the contestant, and the same may be opened and counted 
in any order he sees fit, as part of the contestant’s case: 

In the seventeenth ward, the eighteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-third pre¬ 
cincts; in the eighteenth ward, the eighth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and 
sixteenth precincts; in the nineteenth ward, the fourth, tenth, and eleventh 
precincts; and in the twentieth ward, the first precinct, which will complete 
the recount, so far as contestant’s case is concerned, and that all the remaining 
precincts, the contestee may count as many or as few thereof as he sees fit, or 
whatever he prefers. 

EIGHTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum, the board of election commissioners and the chief clerk of the said board 
of election commissioners, have produced a ballot box, and that by stipulation 
the following description of said ballot box may be entered of record: 

On this ballot box is the following: 

Ballots voted at an election, November 2, 1920, in the eighteenth precinct, of 
the seventeenth ward. 


Men voters_- 268 

Women_ 111 


Signed by the judges. The ballot box is sealed. 

There is also a package of ballots, presumably ballots voted at said election, 
which has the following on it: 

“ 268 ballots cast.” Signed by two names, as judges of election. It also has 
the figures, “ 18-17.” 

This package, which apparently contains ballots, is in a gunny sack which is 
tied with a rope, both ways, and sealed. 

The poll book is apparently the poll book of the eighteenth precinct, of the 
seventeenth ward, and contains the number of men voters as 268; the number of 
women voters as 111; a total of 379. 

Inside the cover is the certificate of the elect’on held in the eighteenth pre¬ 
cinct of the seventeenth ward, on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house of 
Gharles Collins, 1113 West Chicago Avenue, signed by the names of two persons 
in the blanks provided for the signatures of the judges of election, and by the 
names of two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of 
election. 

An inspection of the poll book discloses that 379 persons voted at said elec¬ 
tion. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 10.15 o’clock a. m., same day, June 23, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 




178 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


EIGHTEENTH PRECINCT, OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let tlie record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the eighteenth precinct of the 
seventeenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 


candidates: 

• Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz : * 

Men_ 120 

Women_ 54 

Total_174 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 129 

Women_ 52 

Total_181 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 8 

Women_ a_ 1 


Total_ 9 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 12 

Women_ 2 

Total_ 14 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_,_2G9 

Women-^-- 109 

Grand total_,__378 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken until 1.30 o’clock p. m., same 
day, June 23, 1921.) 

The parties met at the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m., June 23, 1921, pursuant 
to adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers 
appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on 
behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

TWENTY-FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena 
duces tecum the board of election commissioners and the chief clerk of the 
said board of election commissioners have produced a ballot box marked the 
twenty-first precinct of the seventeenth ward, and shows on the outside the 
following figures: 

Democratic: 


Men_120 

Women_ 74 

Republican: 

Men_•._128 

Women_ 75 

Socialist: 

Men- 6 

Women_ 8 


Signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges and 
clerks of election. On the outside are the figures “ 21-17.” The flaps on the bal¬ 
lot box are gummed and tied twice around with rope. The poll book of the 
































PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


179 


precinct shows there were ITT men voters and 91 women voters, making a 
total of 268. Inside the cover it shows that it is a poll book of an election held 
on November 2, 1920, at the house of John Picliarczyh, 628 Noble Street, signed 
in the blanks provided for judges of election by two persons and in the blanks 
provided for clerks of election by two persons. An inspection of the poll book 
discloses the names of 268 persons that voted at said election. You may proceed 
to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein contained as in previous 
precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2 o’clock p. m., same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were lurd: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, 
appearing on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

TWENTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum the board of election commissioners and the chief clerk of the said board 
of election commissioners have produced a ballot box of the twenty-third pre¬ 
cinct of the seventeenth ward, which shows the following: * 

Number of men voters_22T 

Women_ 99 


Total 


326 


Signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided for the signa¬ 
tures of judges of election. The flaps of said box are not sealed. It is bound 
by a rope in two different ways. On the box are the figures “ 23-1-.” The 
poll book is the poll book of the twenty-third precinct of the seventeenth ward 
and shows the number of voters were— 


Men_ 22T 

Women_____ 99 

Total _*_326 


Inside the cover there is a certificate of an election held in the twenty-third 
precinct of the seventeenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house 
of Ignatz Kocol, 14T4 West Erie Street; signed in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of judges of election by three persons, and in the blanks provided for 
the signatures of clerks of election by two persons. An inspection of the poll 
book disclosses the names of 326 persons as having voted at said election. You 
may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein contained, as 
you have in former precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 3 o’clock p. m., same day, June 23, 1921, the following proceed¬ 
ings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

TWENTY-THIRD PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 


Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the twenty-third precinct of the 
seventeenth ward shows the following votes to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 96 

Women_ 41 


Total_ 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

• Men_ 

Women_ 


13T 


101 

44 


Total 


145 






















180 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 10 

Women_ 11 


Total___ 21 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 21 

Women_ 3 


Total_ 24 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 228 

Women_ 99 


Grand total_327 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken until the following day, Friday, 
June 24, 1921, at 9.30 o’clock a. m.) 

June 24, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met at the hour of 9.30 o’clock a. m., Friday, June 24, 1921, pur¬ 
suant to adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, ap¬ 
pearing on behalf of the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume, pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record shew that it is stipulated by and between the parties, 
through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the board of election commissioners and the chief clerk of the said board of 
election commissioners have produced a ballot box of an election held in this 
precinct and ward on the 2d day of November, 1920. On the face of the ballot 
box are the following words and figures: 

Democratic column: 


Men_;_ 76 

Women_ 14 

Republican: 

Men_127 

Women_ 51 


The box is gummed, both sides, and wrapped around with string both ways. 
There also appears to be two packages. One of the packages states, “ Eighth 
precinct of the eighteenth ward, ballots voted.” The other package also states. 
“ Ballots voted in the eighth precinct of the eighteenth ward.” Both packages 
seem to be tied around with a piece of string both ways. The poll book is the 
poll book of the eighth precinct of the eighteenth ward, and shows on the face 


of the cover the following: 

Men voters_304 

Women__ 85 


Total_389 


The inside cover of the poll book shows that the election was held at the house 
of M. J. Walsh, 115 North Ada Street, on November 2, 1920, signed by three 
persons in the column provided for judges of election, and by two persons in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of the clerks of election. An inspection of 
the poll book shows that there were 390 ballots voted, excepting one marked void. 
You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, as in previous 
precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 10.30 o’clock a. m., same day, June 24, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, appearing on bebalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, appearing on behalf of the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 


























PARRILLO VS. ’KUNZ. 


181 


TWENTY-FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. The contestant challenges one (1) men’s ballot in the twenty-first 
precinct of the seventeenth ward, on the ground that, as we see it, the voter 
made a cross in the square in front of the name of contestee, Kunz, and then 
took his lead pencil and destroyed the cross by marking many times over the 
cioss and obliterating the cross. The entire square is filled with black lead- 
pencil marks; about three-quarters of the square is filled over solid with 
graphite. There are three little points that would indicate that they were in 
the nature of cross marks, and as we view it, it looks as if the cross had been 
made and then erased by rubbing the point of the lead pencil over the cross 
until it was entirely covered and obliterated, so that we are unable to see any 
cross, and therefore believe the intention of the voter was to cancel his vote, 
and we challenge it on the ground that he has successfully accomplished that 
purpose, and that there is no cross in the square as it appears at the present 
time. We contend that this ballot should be called a blank. There are no 
crosses in any of the circles at the top of the ballot. 

Mr. Asay. Contestee claims this ballot should be counted for Stanley Henry 
Kunz, as marked. 

Mr. Ayers. In accordance with the stipulations and the procedure heretofore 
followed, this challenged ballot will be placed in an envelope and sealed, which 
envelope will be sealed up with the unchallenged ballots in the ballot box. Said 
challenged ballot is not counted for anybody, but will be held awaiting the 
further action of the congressional committee, or further action by the contestee, 
if he so desires. 

At the hour of 10.45 a. m., same day, June 24, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to w r it: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank I). Ayers, appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
I'arrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, appearing on behalf of the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 


THIRTEENTEI PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum, 
and by stipulation of the parties to this contest, the ballot box of the thirteenth 
precinct of the eighteenth ward is presented by the board of election commis¬ 
sioners and its chief clerk, and shows on its face that it is the ballot box of 
the thirteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward; that in the Democratic column 
the men’s votes are 58; women, 2. In the Republican column the men’s votes 
are 131; women, 8. In the Socialist, men, 8; women, none; and on the outside 
thereof is a notation in pencil, apparently signed by one judge, as follows: 

“ Due to a lack of wire, we have to seal in this way the voted ballots.” 

This is signed by H. W. Smith.’ 

The flaps of the ballot box are ungummed and the rope around it is loose, and 
the box contains on the outside the names of three persons, apparently judges 
of election. The names are signed in the blanks provided for the signatures of 
judges of election. Also, on the outside, are marked the figures “ 13-18.” 

The poll book as presented is apparently the poll book of the thirteenth pre¬ 
cinct of the eighteenth w T ard and bears the figures: 


Men_318 

Women_ 15 

Total_333 


Inside the cover is the certificate of the election in the thirteenth precinct of 
the eighteenth ward, on the 2d of November, 1920, held at the house of Mr. J. N. 
Broop, 601 West Madison Street, and has the names of three persons in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election and one name in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of election. 

An inspection of the poll book shows the names of 332 persons as having 
voted at said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, as you have done in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. m., same day, June 24, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 








182 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, appearing on behalf of the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

/ 

TWENTY-FIRST PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the twenty-first precinct of the 
seventeenth ward shows the following votes to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz : 

Men_ 69 

Women_ 44 


Total_'___113 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 94 

Women_ 36 


Total__130 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 

Women.. 


8 

4 


Total 


12 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_,_ 5 

W T omen_ 2 


Total_ 7 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_176 

Women_:_ 86 

Grand total_262 


One ballot contested, not counted for either party, to he sealed in envelope 
and then sealed in ballot box. 

At the hour of 11.10 o’clock a. m., same day, June 24, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, appearing on behalf of the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 

EIGHTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the eighth precinct of the 
eighteenth ward shows the following votes to have been received by the various 


candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men-100 

Women_ 20 

Total_120 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men__ 152 

Women_ 56 

Total_209 


/ 







































parrillo vs. kunz. 


183 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 

Women_ 

Total___ 

Ballots east for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 

Women__ 

Total_ 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


19 

5 


24 


24 

3 


27 


296 

84 


Grand total__ 

At tlie hour of 11.15 o’clock a. m., same day, June 24, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: ^ 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commisssioner, 
presiding; Mr Frank D. Ayers, appearing on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, appearing on behalf of the contestee, Stanley 
Henry Kunz. 


THIRTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the thirteenth precinct of the 
eighteenth ward, shows the following votes to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men-,___106 

Women____ 2 


Total-----108 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men-175 

Women___*_ 4 _ 11 


Total-186 


Blank votes: 

Men __ 18 

Women_ 0 


Total ___ 18 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 17 

Women--- 0 


Total_ 17 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 316 

Women;_ 13 

Grand total_329 


At the hour of 11.55 o’clock a. m., same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H .Kunz. 














































184 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


FOURTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the par¬ 
ties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subp(ena duces 
tecum the board of election commissioners and the clerk thereof have pre¬ 
sented a ballot box marked “ Fourteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward,” and 
shows in the proper place the following : 

Democratic: 


Men_ 61 

Women_ 15 

Republican: 

Men_ 87 

Women_ 24 

Socialist: 

Men_ 2 

Women_ 2 


Signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges 
of election. 

The. flaps on the ballot box are sealed and is tied twice around with a rope 
and sealed. On the outside of the box are the figures “ 14-18.” 

The poll book also presented in response to the subpoena shows that it is the 
poll book of the fourteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward and shows in the 
blanks provided the following: 

Number of voters_236 

Number of women voters__ 57 


Total_293 

Qn the inside of the poll book is the certificate which shows that an election 
was held in the. fourteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward on the 2 d day of 
November, 1920, at the house of Con Healy, 227 South Halsted Street, and is 
signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of 
election and by two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of clerks 
of election. 

An inspection of the poll book shows that there are the names of 293 persons 
as having voted at said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, as in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 12.15 o’clock p. m., same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of. the contestee, Stanley Henry Kunz. 

FOURTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 


Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the fourteenth precinct of the 
eighteenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men- SO 

Women_ 17 

Total_ 07 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men-*-----123 

\\ omen_ 3 Q 

Total- - 


N, 
























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


185 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 19 

Women_ 6 


Total_ 25 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_i_J._ 14 

Women_ 2 


Total_ 16 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_230 

Women_ 55 


Grand total_291 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. m., 
same day, June 23, 1921.) 

The parties met at the hour of 1.30 o’clock p. in., same day, June 23, 1921, 
pursuant to adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit; Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayres, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIFTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

The Commissioner. This hearing will now resume pursuant to adjournment 
heretofore taken. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum the hoard of election commissioners and the chief clerk of the said hoard 
of election commissioners have produced a ballot box which is marked 
“ fifteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward,” and the certificate on the cover 
shows that it is the fifteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward and has the 
following: 


Democratic: 

Men_ 85 

Women_ 25 

Republican: 

Men_^-- 92 

Women_ 47 

Socialist: 

Men_.- 17 

Women--- 1 


It appears to he signed by three judges. There is a rope around the box 
two ways. The flaps are not sealed and has no sealing wax on the knot. 

The poll book of the fifteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward shows the 


following: 

Number of men voters_215 

Number of women voters-.- 73 


Total_288 


The certificate on the inside cover shows that an election was held on the 
2d day of November, 1920, at the house of Margaret Stout, 1029 West Jackson 
Boulevard. 

It appears to be signed by the names of three persons in the blanks provided 
for the signatures of judges of election and by two persons in the blanks pro¬ 
vided for the signatures of the clerks of election. 

An inspection of the poll book shows there are 288 names as having voted at 
said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, as in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 




























186 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


At the hour of 1.45 o’clock p. in., same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the 
contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SIXTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD (TABLE NO. 2.) 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum the board of election commission and its chief clerk thereof have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box marked “ sixteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward,” and 
shows in the proper places the following: 

Democratic: 


Men_ 103 

Women_ _ _ 35 

Republican: 

Men_117 

Women_ 49 

Socialist: 

Men_ 22 

Women_ 2 


In the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election are the names 
of 360. 

The ballot box is not sealed or gummed. It is tied twice around with string 
and on the outside shows the figures 16-18. 

The poll book presented in response to the subpoena purports to be the poll 
book of the sixteenth precinct of the eighteenth ward. It shows the following: 


Number of men voters_251 

Number of women voters_ 94 

Total_345 


The certificate shows an election was held on the 2d day of November, 1920, at 
the house of Julian Lunderman, 309 South Racine Avenue, and in the blanks pro¬ 
vided for the signatures of judges of election are three names, and in the blanks 
provided for the signatures of clerks of election is one name. 

An inspection of the poll book discloses the names of 345 persons as having 
voted at said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained. as in previous precincts. , 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2 o’clock p. m. same day, June 23, 1921. the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple. commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Statnley H. Kunz. 

FIFTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the fifteenth precinct of the 
eighteenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 


candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men- 88 

Women_ 23 


Total---111 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 91 

Women_^_ 40 


W 


Total 


137 
























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


187 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 

Women.' 


10 

6 


Total_ 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 

Women_ 

Total__ 

Total number of ballots cast: 


Men-207 

Women_ 70 

Grand tptal-283 


At the hour of 2.15 o’clock p. m. same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. 1 Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Ivunz. 

FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties, through their respective attorneys, that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum the board of election commissioners and its chief clerk have produced 
a ballot box purporting to be the ballot box of the fourth precinct of the nine¬ 
teenth ward, upon which are the names of three parties in the blanks provided 
for the signatures of judges of election. The ballot box has both flaps gummed 
and is bound around twice with a rope, and on the outside shows the figures 
L19. 

The poll book has no figures filled in the blanks on the outside of the cover. 

On the inside of the cover shows that it is the poll book of the fourth 
precinct of the nineteenth ward, and that the election was held on the 2d day of 
November, 1920, at the house of-Girraird, 810 Taylor Street. 

It is signed by one person in the blank provided for the signatures of judges 
of election and by two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of the 
clerks of election. * 

An inspection of the poll book shows the names of 235 persons as having 
voted at said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained as in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2.30 o’clock p. m. same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank C. Ayers on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

I 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties, through 
their respective attorneys, that the recount of the fourth precinct of the nine¬ 
teenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by he various 


candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 75 

Women_ 7 

Total_ 82 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 99 

Women_:- 30 

Total_129 
































188 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 

Women_ 

Total_ 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 

Women_ 


Total_ 9 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_192 

Women_ 43 

Grand total_ 235 


At the hour of 2.45 o’clock p. m., same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Ivunz. 

TENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by and between the 
parties through their respective attorneys that in response to a subpoena duces 
tecum the board of election commissioners and its chief clerk have presented 
a ballot box marked “ Tenth precinct of the nineteenth ward,” and shows 
on the outside the following figures: 

Democratic: • 


Men_ 63 

Women_ 26 

Republican: 

Men_ 86 

Women_ 18 

Socialist: 

Men_•_ 8 

Women_ 2 


It appears to be signed by three judges. 

There is a rope around the box in two ways. The flaps are sealed to the 
bottom of the box and on one end of the box are the figures 10-19. 

There is also a package. This package is wrapped in paper, with a rope 
around it three ways, and knotted. 

On the package are the figures 10-19, and is signed by three judges. 

The poll book shows on the outside the following: 

Number of men voters_175 

Number of women voters_ 53 


Total_228 

The certificate on the inside of the cover of the poll book shows that it is 
the poll book of the tenth precinct of the nineteenth ward and that an election 

was held at the house of- Ogg, 1110 Harrison Street, on the 2d day of 

November, 1920. It is signed by the names of three judges and two clerks. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained, as in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2.50 o’clock p. m., same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 


05 CO I lO II 05 O 





























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


189 


SIXTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let tlie record show that it is stipulated by the parties through 
their respective attorneys that the recount of the sixteenth precinct of the 
eighteenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men- 92 

Women_ 34 

Total- 126 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men- - 

VY omen_ 47 

Total- - 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 24 

Women_ 

Total- 32 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 15 

Women_ 2 

Total_ 17 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 250 

Women_ 91 

Grand total_341 

At the hour of 3 o’clock p. m., same day, June 23, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had: 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

TENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated by the parties through 
their respective attorneys that the recount of the tenth precinct of the nine¬ 
teenth ward shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men.^_ 69 

Women_ 23 

Total_ 92 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 83 

Women_ 16 

Total_ 99 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 11 

Women_ 0 

Total_ 11 















































190 


PARRILLO VS. KUKZ. 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 7 

Women_ 0 


Total_:_ 7 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men__170 

Women_ 39 


Grand total_209 


Mr. Asay. It is stipulated that the recount of the ballots may now be ad¬ 
journed until Monday, June 27, 1921, at 9.30 o’clock a. m., when the contestant 
will resume. It is further stipulated that the time of said adjournment shall 
not be charged to either contestant or contestee. 


June 27, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met pursuant to adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of 
the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

ELEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pre¬ 
sented a ballot box marked on the outside “11-19.” On top of said box. tied 
with a double rope two ways, is a package which contains on the outside, 
“ Eleventh precinct of the nineteenth ward.” 

Returning now to a description of the ballot box itself: The ballot box has 
both flaps sealed and is bound around with a string, and is marked “ 11-19.” 
In the proper blanks provided therefor are the figures “164 men, 56 women, a 
total of 220,” and the names of three persons appear signed as judges of elec¬ 
tion in the blanks provided therefor on the outside of the box. The poll book 
shows that it is the poll book of the eleventh prectinct of the nineteenth ward, 
and shows the number of men voters, 165; women, 55; a total of 220. On the 
inside of the cover there is a certificate that an election was held in the eleventh 
precinct of the nineteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920'. at the house 
cf Christopher Mamer, 1245 Congress Street, and it has the signatures of three 
persons in the blanks provided for the signature of judges of election and two 
signatures in the blanks provided for the signatures Of clerks of election. An 
inspection of the poll bock discloses the names of 220 voters as having voted at 
said election. You may proceed to open and count the ballots, the same as you 
have done in the previous precincts. 

(The count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 9.45 o’clock a. m., same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIRST PRECINCT OF THE TWENTIETH WARD-TABLE NO. 2. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box marked “ 1/20,” containing the following figures in the proper 
blanks provided therefor: Democratic, men, 33, women, 18; Republican, men, 
119, women, 29. It contains three signatures of judges of election. Said bal¬ 
lot box has the flaps gummed together, and contains on the outside the figures 
“ 1-20.” A rope is tied both ways around it. The poll book shows it to be the 
first precinct of the twentieth ward, with the number of men 218, women, 53, a 
total of 271. On the inside of the cover is a certificate that it was an election 
held in the first precinct of the twentieth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, 
at the house of Mango Salem, 737 De Koven Street, signed by two persons in 
the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election and by two per¬ 
sons in the blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of election; and an in¬ 
spection of the poll book shows the names of 274 persons as having voted at the 














PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


191 


said election. You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots 
therein contained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 10.30 o’clock a. m. same day, June 27, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Mr. Frank 1). Ayers on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIRST PRECINCT OF THE TWENTIETH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the.recount 
of the first precinct of the twentieth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 


candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 69 

Women_ t _ 18 

Total___•_ 87 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 119 

Women_ 29 

Total_____148 

Blank votes: 

Men_*__ 16 

Women_ 5j 

Total_ 21 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_i_._ 15 

Women_ 1 

Total_ 16 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_219 

Women_— <- 53 

Grand total_272 


At the hour of 10.40 o’clock a. m. same day, June 27, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

ELEVENTH precinct of the nineteenth ward-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the eleventh precinct of the nineteenth ward, as made by the board of elec¬ 
tion commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the 
various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 


Men_'- 61 

Women_ 15 

Total_ 16 


96674—22-13 





































192 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 77 

Women___ 40 


Total_177 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 12 

Women_ 1 


Total___ 13 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men__ 12 

Women _ 0 


Total_ 12 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men___162 

Women_i_ 56 


Grand total_218 


CONTESTEE’S EVIDENCE. 

At the hour of 11 o’clock a. m., same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Crapple, commissioner, 
presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

NINTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box, marked the “ Ninth precinct of the nineteenth ward,” and 
in all the blanks except as to the blanks provided for the signatures of the 
judges of election, in which there are three names, it is blank. 

The box is bound around with a rope in two ways and sealed up, and the 
flaps are gummed. The box is marked on the outside “ 9-19.” 

The poll book shows that it is the poll book of the ninth precinct of the 
nineteenth ward, and shows men voters, 173; women, 49; total, 222. 

The certificate on the inside of the cover shows that it was an election held on 
the 2d day of November, 1920, and has the signatures of three persons in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election, and has the signatures 
of two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of election. 
An inspection of the poll book shows that there are 222 voters as having voted 
at said election. 

There is also a package marked “ 9-19,” which package is in an envelope t'ed 
around with a rope and is marked the “ Ninth precinct of the nineteenth ward.” 

You may proceed to count the ballots, as you have in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon count proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11.10 o’clock a. m., same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the follow¬ 
ing proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit. Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

NINTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Air. Asay. Let the record show that, it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the ninth precinct, of the nineteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: * /'3 
























PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


193 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 34 

Women_ 9 


Total_ 43 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 12S 

Women_ 35 


Total_ 163 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 8 

Women_ 2 


Total_ 10 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men___ 4 

Women_ 3 


Total_ 7 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 174 

Women_ 49 


Grand total__ 223 


At the hour of 11.15 o’clock a. m., same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the follow¬ 
ing proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

SIXTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box, marked the “ Sixteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward,” 
with divers figures on the outside and signed by three persons as judges of 
election. 

The box has the flaps sealed and bound twice with a rope and is marked 
on the outside “ 16-19.” 

The poll book shows that it is the poll book of the sixteenth precinct of the 
nineteenth ward and shows the number of men voters as 186; women, 53; 

1 total, 239. . 

The certificate on the inside of the cover shows that it was an election held 
in the sixteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 
1920, at 1204 West Taylor Street, and is signed by three persons in the blanks 
provided for the signatures of the judges of election, and by two persons in 
the blanks provided for the signatures of the clerks of election. An inspection 
of the poll book shows the names of 240 persons as having voted at said elec¬ 
tion, one cancellation, No. 232, making the total number of 239 as having voted 

at said election. . , , . 

In addition to the ballot box is presented another bundle tied twice with a 
rope and apparently contains ballots cast at the said election, inclading the 

judicial ticket. . , , . .. 

You may proceed to open and count the ballots, as you have done in the pre¬ 
vious precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 2 o’clock same day, June 
27 1921.) 

- The parties met pursuant to adjournment heretofore taken. 






























194 


PARBILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Present: Same counsel and parties as before, to wit, Mr. Guy C. Grapple, 
commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan 

Parillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

# 

THIRD PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 


Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pre¬ 
sented a ballot box, marked “ third precinct of the nineteenth ward,” and the 


following marks on the outside: 

Number of candidates’ ballots: 

Democratic: 

Men_ 181 

Women_ 54 


Total_235 

There are the names of two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures 
of judges of election. 

The flaps on the ballot box are gummed and sealed. There is a rope going 
two ways around the box, which is likewise sealed. 

The poll book shows on its face that it is the third precinct of the nineteenth 


ward: 

Number of men voters_,_ 1S1 

Number of women voters_ 54 

'Total_235 


On the inside of the cover the certificate shows that an election was held in 
the third precinct of the nineteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, 
at the home of Antonio Palise, No. 904 Desplaines Street, and it is signed by 
three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election 
and by two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of the clerks: of 
election. 

An inspection of the poll book discloses the names of 238 persons as having 
voted at said election, but I find before No. 207 of said voters under the head of 
“ Remarks,” “ Not registered.” and under No. 224 of said book, also the words 
“ Not registered,” also No. 236, which would reduce the number to 235. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots contained 
therein, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2.15 o’clock p. m. same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 


fifteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box marked “ Fifteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward,” which 
contains the following marks on the outside: 

Number of candidates’ ballots; 

Democratic: 

Men_ 16 

Women_ 6 

Republican: 

Men_ 122 

Women_ 22 

Socialist: 

Men_ 12 

Women___2 or 1 

I don’t know which it is—2 or 1—it is hard to tell there. 

The said ballot box has both flaps sealed and a rope bound around the outside 
of the box two ways, sealed with wax, and contains on the outside of the box 
“ 15-19.” 















PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 195 

The poll book is marked the “ poll book of the fifteenth precinct of the nine¬ 
teenth ward.” 

Number of men voters_ 159 

Number of women voters_ 29 

Total- 188 


The certificate on the inside shows that it was an election held in the fifteenth 
precinct of the nineteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house 
of Frank Reda, 1003 West Polk Street, and it is signed in the blanks provided 
for the signatures of judges of election by three persons and in the blanks pro¬ 
vided for the signatures of clerks of election by two persons. An inspection of 
the poll hook shows the names of 188 persons as having voted at said election. 

You may proceed to open and count the ballots, the same as you have done 
heretofore. 

(Count proceeding.) 

At the hour of 2.30 o’clock p. m., same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stan¬ 
ley H. Kunz. 

FIFTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and between 
the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount of the 
fifteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward, as made by the board of election com¬ 
missioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various can¬ 


didates : 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men- 17 

Women_ 7 

Total_ 24 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 121 

Women_ 21 

Total_ 142 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 13 

Women_ 0 

Total_ 13 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 8 

Women_ 1 

Total_ 9 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 159 

Women_ 29 

Grand total_ 188 


At the hour of 2.35 o’clock p. m., same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stan¬ 
ley H. Kunz. 

FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum the 
election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have produced 
a ballot box, which has no marks on the outside in the blanks, but has the 


































196 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


figures “ 5-18 ” on tlie outside and is bound with a rope both ways. The fiaps 
are both sealed and the rope is sealed. 

There is also a second package appearing containing ballots wrapped up with 
a rope around it one way and marked on the outside, “ 5-18.” 

The poll book is marked the “ fifth precinct of the eighteenth ward,” and, 
under the proper blanks, number of men voters, 266; number of women voters, 
124; total, 390. 

The inside of the cover doesn’t show anything in the blanks except the names 
of three persons having signed in the blanks provided for the signatures of the 
judges of election and two persons having signed in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of the clerks of election, and an inspection of the poll book discloses 
the names of 393 persons as having voted at said election. 

You may proceed to open and count the ballots, as you have done in the other 
precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2.40 o’clock p. m., same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

TENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum the 
election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have produced a 
ballot box, marked “ The tenth precinct of the eighteenth ward,” showing men’s 
votes 129, women 6, in the Democratic column, and in the Republican column, 
men 251, women, 29, Socialist, 1 man, and 3 names appearing in the blanks 
provided for the signature of judges of election, and on the outside of the box 
is marked, “ Candidates’ ballots in separate bundle,” tied two ways with a rope. 
The flaps are gummed and sealed. The poll book shows that it is the poll book 
of the tenth precinct of the eighteenth ward, and contains on the outside the 
number of men voters 374, women 40, total 414. The certificate on the inside 
of the cover shows that it was an election held on the second day of November, 
1920, at the house of Ben Reed, 7 South Morgan Street, signed in the blanks 
provided for the signatures of judges of election by the names of three persons 
and in the blanks provided for the signatures of clerk of election by the names 
of two persons. An inspection of the poll book shows the names of 420 persons 
as having voted at the said election. There is also presented a package wrapped 
in heavy brown wrapping paper marked “ Eighteenth ward, tenth precinct, 371 
men’s ballots.” It is tied around with a rope three ways, and the knots of said 
rope are sealed in two places. You may proceed to count the ballots the same as 
you have done heretofore. 

(Whereupon the count proceeded.) 

At the hour of 2.45 o’clock p. m., same day, June 27, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIFTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the fifth precinct of the eighteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz : 

Men_ 26 

Women_:_ 8 


Total_ 34 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_178 

Women_110 


Total_288 










PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


197 


Blank votes: 


Men 


Women 



Total 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men 


Women 

2 

Total 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men 


Women 


Grand total 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken to 9.30 o’clock a. 

m. June 


28, 1921.) 

June 28, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met pursuant to adjournment heretofore fallen. 

Present: Mr. Guy C. Grapple, commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers 
on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the 
contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SECOND PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pre¬ 
sented a bollot box, marked on the outside “ The second precinct of the nine¬ 
teenth ward,” and in the proper blanks shows the number of candidates’ 
ballots: 

Democratic, men, 13; women, 9; Republican, men, 83; women, 23; Socialist, 
men, 1. Signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of 
judges of election. The flaps are gummed and the box is tied twice around with 
a rope, which is also sealed. The box also bears on the outside the figures 
”2-19.” The poll book shows on the outside that it is the poll book of the 
second precinct of the nineteenth ward: 


Number of men voters_1_ 49 

Number of women voters__152 

Total_i_201 


The certificate on the inside of the cover shows that an election was held 
in the second precinct of the nineteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 
1920, at 1019 South Jefferson Street, signed by three persons in the blanks 
provided for the signatures of judges of election and by two persons in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of election, and an inspectoin of the 
poll book shows that there were apparently 201 voters who voted at said 
election. You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein 
contained, the same as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 9.45 o’clock a. m., same day, June 28, A. D.-1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Mr. Frank D. Ayers on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; 
Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

SECOND PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have 
presented a ballot box marked “ The second precinct of the eighteenth ward.” 
and in the proper blanks shows the number of candidates’ ballots: 

Democratic, men 44, women 1; Republican, men 222, women 30; Socialist, 
men 11, women 1. It is signed in the blanks provided for the signatures of 






















198 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


judges of election by three names. The flaps are not sealed or gummed and the 
box is not sealed. It is tied around with a rope in two ways. It has the 
figures on the outside “ 2-18.” The poll book shows that it was an election 
held in the second precinct of the eighteenth ward on the 2d day of Novem¬ 
ber. 1920, at the house of M. C. Brandon, 740 West Washington Boulevard, 
and is signed by two names in the blank provided for the signatures of judges 
of election and by the names of two persons in the blanks provided for the 
signatures of clerks of election, and an inspection of the poll book shows 
the names of 325 persons as having voted at the said election. You may pro¬ 
ceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein, the same as you 
have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., same day, June 28, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Mr. Frank D. Ayers on behalf of the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. 
William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 

THIRD PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pre¬ 
sented a ballot box marked the third precinct of the eighteenth ward, and on 
the outside of the box are contained the figures: Democratic, men 186, women 
40: Republican, men 21, women 3; Socialist, men 7. 

It is signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of 
judges of election. The outside of the box contains the figures “ 3-18.” The 
flaps are not sealed or gummed, but it is tied twice around with a rope, which 
is loose. The poll book purports to be the poll book of the third precinct of the 
eighteenth ward, and in the proper blanks shows the number of men as 236, 
women 49, total of 285; and on the inside is a certificate showing that it was 
an election held in the third precinct of the eighteenth ward on the 2d day 
of November, 1920, at the house of Joe Gunsberg, 1104 West Madison Street, 
and in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election are the names 
of three persons, and in the blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of 
election are the names of two persons, and an inspection of the poll book dis¬ 
closes the names of 285 persons as having voted at said election. You may 
proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein, the same as you 
have done in the other precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 10.10 o’clock a. m., same day, June 28, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIRST PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pre¬ 
sented a ballot box marked on the outside the first precinct of the nineteenth 
ward, and in the proper blanks appear the number of candidates’ ballots: 

Democratic: 


Men_ 222 

Women_ 5 

Republican: 

Men_ 95 

Women_ 35 

Socialist: 

Men_._ 2 

Women_ 0 


Three names appear in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of 
election. One of the flaps of said box is gummed and the other is loose. Said 
box is tied twice around with a rope. There appear on the outside the figures 
“ 1-19.” 

The poll book shows that it was an election held in the first precinct of the 
nineteenth ward on the second day of November, 1920, and shows in the 
proper blanks: 












Number of men voters_ 

Number of women voters 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


199 


119 

40 


Total-- 

The eertificate shows that it was an election held at the house of Ed Rit- 
tnamei, oo9 West Harrison Street, and is signed by three persons in the blanks 
piOMded for the signatures of judges of election and by two persons in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of election, and inspection of the 
poll book shows the names of 359 persons as having voted at said election. 

lou gnay proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein the same 
as you have done in the other precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded). 

At the hour of 10.JO o’clock a. m. same day, June 28, 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Frank D. Ayers on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the coiitestee 
Stanley H. Kunz. 


TENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 


Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and between 
the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount of the 
tenth precinct of the eighteenth ward, as made by the board of election com¬ 
missioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_._126 

Women_ 10 


Total-136 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_,_221 

Women___ 28 


Total_249 


Blank votes: 

Men__ 16 

Women_ 1 


Total_ l.__ 17 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 11 

Women_*_ 1 


Total_ 12 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_874 

Women___- 40 


Grand total-414 


At the hour of 10.25 o’clock a. m. same day, Ju*ie 28, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 


SECOND PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount of 


































200 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


the second precinct of the nineteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 


Men_•_ 20 

Women_ 12 


Total_____ 32 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ A 123 

Women_,_ 37 


Total 


160 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 4 

Women_ 0 


Total__ 4 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men___ 2 

Women_ 0 


Total_—_ 2 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ r - 149 

Women_ 49 


Grand total_ 198 


At the hour of 10.30 o’clock a. m. same day, June 28, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 


SECOND PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the second precinct of the eighteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men__ 49 

Women__ 2 


Total_ 51 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo : 

Men_ 216 

Women_ 27 

• -- 

Total_243 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 10 

Women_ 0 


Total__ 10 



















































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


201 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men__ 

Women_ 20 


Total 


Total number of ballots cast 

Men_ 

Women__ 


_ 21 


— 295 
___ 30 


325 


Grand total_ 

At the hour of 10.35 o’clock a. m. same day, June 28, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had m the aforesaid contest * 

r-nn^nV Same partis as before, to wit, Mr. Frank I). Ayers, on behalf of the 
ley H Kuiiz 111 1111111 ^ 1 ■ W illiam C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stan- 


ELEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD. 


Mi. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum the 
election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have presented 
a ballot box, marked “The eleventh precinct of the seventeenth ward,” showing 
in the proper blanks the number of men voters 192, women 48, and it is signed by 
three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of election. The 
naps on the box are gummed and sealed and the box is bound around twice with 
a rope, and there appears on the outside the figures “ 11-17.” 

The poll book shows on the outside the figures “ 11-17,” number of men voters 
192, women 48, total 240. 

The certificate shows that it was an election held in the eleventh precinct of 
the seventeenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the.house of Felix 
Kasie, 4801 Milwaukee Avenue, signed by two persons in the blanks provided for 
the signatures of judges of election and by two persons in the blanks provided 
for the signatures of clerks of election. 

An inspection of the poll book shows the names of 240 persons as having voted 
at .said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein the same 
as you have done in the previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 10.40 o’clock a. m., same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 


FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pre¬ 
sented a ballot box marked the “ Fourth precinct of the eighteenth ward,” and 
in the proper blanks shows the number of candidates’ ballots: 


Democratic: 

Men_ 34 

Women_ 10 

Republican: 

Men __163 

Women_ 73 

Socialist : 

Men_ 6 

Women_ 1 


signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of 
election, and marked on the outside “ 4-18.” 

The two flaps on the box are sealed and wrapped around once with a rope, 
which is sealed. 

The poll book of the fourth precinct of the eighteenth ward shows the num¬ 
ber of men voters as 214, number of women voters, 95; total, 309. 


















202 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


On the inside is a certificate showing that it was an election in the fourth 
precinct of the eighteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, at the house 
of Arthur Olson, 1320 Lake Street, and is signed by three persons in the blanks 
provided for the signatures of judges of election and by two persons in the 
blanks provided for the signatures of clerks of election, and an inspection of 
the poll book discloses the names of 309 persons as having voted at said election. 

There is also presented four packages wrapped together in heavy brown 
paper and bound five ways with rope, and bears on the outside of said package 
“ 4-18 ” and the word “ women’s ” ; also on another package is marked “ 4-18,” 
with the word “ men’s.” 

You may proceed to count the ballots the same as you have done in the other 
precincts. • 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 10.45 o’clock a. in., same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 


THIRD PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the third precinct of the eighteenth ward as made by the board of election 
commissioners shows the following vote to have been received by the various 


candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men- 36 

Women_ 3 

Total_ 39 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_'_168 

Women--- 42 

Total_210 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 16 

Women_ 3 

Total_ 19 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 13 

Women_0 

Total_ 13 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 233 

Women_ 48 

Grand total--- 281 


At the hour of 10.50 o’clock a. m., same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

FIRST PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Asay. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and between 
the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount of the 
first precinct of the nineteenth ward, as made by the board of election com¬ 
missioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various can¬ 
didates : 
































PARRILLO YS. IvUNZ. 


203 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_•____ 25 

Women_ 7 


Total_;_ 32 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men- 88 

Women_;_ 30 


Total___118 


Blank votes: 

Men_ 4 

Women_ 2 


Total___ 6 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 3 

Women_ 0 


Total_ * 3 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men_120 

Women--- 39 


Grand total-159 

At the hour of 10.15 o’clock a. m., same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee,, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 


ELEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE SEVENTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the re¬ 
count of the eleventh precinct of the seventeenth ward, as made by the board of 
election commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by 
the various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 42 

Women_ 1^ 


Total- 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 

Women- 

Total_- 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 

Women_ 

Total- 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men--- 

Women- 


58 


124 

26 


150 


6 


8 


13 

4 


Total 


17 






















































204 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ, 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men_'-185 

Women____ 48 

Grand total_233 


At the hour of 10.30 o’clock a. m., same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the follow¬ 
ing proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

FOURTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD—RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the fourth precinct of the eighteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates : 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 41 

W omen_ 11 


Total___ 52 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_158 

Women_——._ 71 


Total_229 


Blank votes: 

Men_._ 6 

Women_'_ 2 


Total_ 8 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_-_ 8 

Women_ 3 


Total_ 11 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men___ 213 

Women_ 87 

Grand total---300 


STIPULATION. 

It is stipulated and agreed between the parties, at the request of the contest¬ 
ant, that precincts 2 of the twentieth ward and 17 of the nineteenth ward may 
be counted by contestant without interfering with the right of the contestee to 
proceed further. 

At the hour of 10.45 o’clock a. m.. same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the follow¬ 
ing proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit: Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stan¬ 
ley H. Kunz. 

second precinct of the twentieth ward. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box marked the “ Second precinct of the twentieth ward,” with 
divers figures on the outside that are hardly decipherable. 






































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


205 


It bears the signature of three persons in the blapks provided for the signa¬ 
tures of judges of election. It is marked on the outside, “2-20.” Neither flap 
is sealed, and the box is bound with one rope. 

I he poll book shows 117 men voters and 53 women voters, with a total of 170. 

ihe inside cover shows an election was held on the 2d day of November, 1920, 
in the second precinct of the twentieth ward, at 1109 South Desplaines Street! 
signed by three persons as judges of election and two persons as clerks of 
election. 

An inspection of the poll book shows the names of 170 persons having voted at 
that election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots, as has been 
done in former precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 10.50 o’clock a. m„ same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Avers, on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, Stan¬ 
ley H. Ivunz. 


SEVENTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board have pro¬ 
duced a ballot box marked, “ Seventeenth precinct of the nineteenth ward,” 
signed by three persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges of 
election. 

The flaps are gummed and the box is bound with rope, in two ways, and 
bears the figures “ 17-19 ” on the outside. 

The poll book of the seventeenth precinct of the nineteenth ward shows the 
number of men voters were 246; women, 63; a total of 309. 

The certificate on the outside of the cover shows an election was held in the 
seventeenth precinct of the nineteenth ward on the 2d day of November, 1920, 
at the house of Felix Breziosco, 1039 Blue Island Avenue, signed by three per¬ 
sons as judges of election, and by two persons as clerks of election. 

An inspection of the poll book shows the names and addresses of 309 persons 
voting at said election. 

You may proceed to open the ballot box and count the ballots therein con¬ 
tained. as has been done in previous precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

At the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m„ same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the 
contestant. Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

SECOND PRECINCT OF THE TWENTIETH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto through their respective attorneys that the recount of 
the second precinct of the twentieth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 


candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 47 

Women_ 32 


Total_ 79 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ 53 

Women_ T - 17 


Total_ 70 

rrri _____ 















206 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Blank votes: 

Men__ 

Women— 


Total 


10 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

, Men_ 

Women__ 

Total_ 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men_112 

Women_ 55 


Grand total_107 

At the hour of 11.30 o’clock a. m., same day, June 28, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

SEVENTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto through their respective attorneys that the recount 
of the seventeenth precinct of the nineteenth ward, as made by the board of 
election commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the 
various candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 


Men_ 74 

Women___ 22 


Total_ 96 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men___124 

Women_ 24 


Total_148 


Blank votes: 

Men_ r _ 23 

W omen_ 6 


Total__ 29 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 23 

Women_ 6 


Total 


29 


Total number of ballots cast: 


Men _244 

Women_ 58 


Grand total__302 

(Whereupon, by agreement, an adjournment was here taken until the fol¬ 
lowing day, Wednesday, June 29, 1921, at 9.30 o’clock a. m.) 

June 29, 1921—9.30 a. m. 

The parties met pursuant to adjournment heretofore taken. 

Present: Same counsel and parties as before, to wit: Mr. Guy C. Crapple, 
commissioner, presiding; Mr. Frank D. Ayers on behalf of the contestant, Dan 
Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, Stanley H. Kunz. 














































PAREILLO VS. KUNZ. 


207 


SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD. 


Mi-. Ayers. Let the record show that in response to a subpoena duces tecum 
the election commissioners and the chief clerk of the election board ■ have 
presented a ballot box marked the sixth precinct of the eighteenth ward. 

The following notations are on the outside of the box, in the blanks, for num¬ 
ber of candidates’ names: 


Democratic: 

Men_ 

Women_ 

Republican: 

Men_ 

Women_ 

Socialist: 

Men_ : _ 

Women_ 


53 (in 2 boxes) 
24 (in 2 boxes) 

140 (in 2 boxes) 
61 (in 2 boxes) 

16 (in 2 boxes) 
3 (in 2 boxes) 


Signed by two persons in the blanks provided for the signatures of judges 
of election. The flaps are gummed and a rope is around the box in two ways. 
The box on the outside shows the figures “ 6-18.” There is a second package, 
or box, containing what purports to be ballots of said precinct, marked on the 
outside, “ 6-18.” The ballots in both boxes are signed by three persons, pre¬ 
sumably as judges of election. One of the boxes is tied with two ropes and 
tied in two ways and sealed. The other box is tied around two ways and 
sealed. The poll book is marked the sixth precinct of the eighteenth ward. 
On the outside shows the following: 


Men voters_312 

Women__130 


Total___432 

On the inside cover is the certificate of an election held in the sixth precinct 
of the eighteenth ward on the 2d of November, 1920, at 667 Randolph Street, 
signed by three persons as judges of election and by two persons as clerks of 
election. An inspection of the poll book shows the names of 436 persons, with 
their addresses, who have voted at said election. You may proceed to open the 
ballot box and count the ballots therein contained, as has been done in previous 
precincts. 

(Whereupon the count here proceeded.) 

STIPULATION. 


It is stipulated and agreed between counsel of both parties that the remaining 
precincts in the eighth congressional district may now be recounted, so that we 
may know the full count of said district, and that the time taken in recounting 
the said precincts shall be without prejudice to either party. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken until 2 o’clock p. m. same day, 
June 29, 1921.) 

At the hour of 2 o’clock p. in. same day, June 29, A. D.~ 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

SIXTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the sixth precinct of the eighteenth ward as made by the board of election 
commissioners shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men__ 78 

Women_ 22 


Total 


100 


96674—22-14 

















208 


PARRILLO vs. kunz. 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men----- 179 

Women_ 80 


Total___259 


Blank votes: 

Men—__ 33 

Women_ 13 

Total_ 46 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 24 

Women.___ 4 


Total_ 28 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men-314 

Women_119 


Grand total__433 


At the hour of 2.15 o’clock p. m., same day, June 29, A. D. 1921, the following 
proceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

SEVENTH PRECINCT OF THE EIGHTEENTH WARD-RESUMED. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and 
between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount 
of the seventh precinct of the eighteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 
candidates: 


Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_______ 56 

Women___1_ 4 


Total ___ 60 


Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men______164 

Women_____ 54 


Total_,___^___,____218 


Blank votes: 

Men______ 13 

Women___—*- 5 


Total_ 18 


Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men---- 9 

Women_ 1 

Total--’_10 


Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_242 

Women_ 64 


Grand total 


306 



















































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 209 

At the hour of 2.45 o’clock p. m., same day, June 29, 1921, the following pro¬ 
ceedings were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit, Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of the 
contestant, Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 

SIXTEENTH PRECINCT OF THE NINETEENTH WARD. 

Mr. Ayers. Let the record show that it is stipulated and agreed by and be¬ 
tween the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the recount of 
the sixteenth precinct of the nineteenth ward, as made by the board of election 
commissioners, shows the following vote to have been received by the various 


candidates: • 

Ballots cast for Mr. Kunz: 

Men_ 21 

Women_ 7 

Total___ 28 

Ballots cast for Mr. Parrillo: 

Men_ r. _ 144 

Women_ 38 

• _ 

Total_1_182 

Blank votes: 

Men_ 15 

Women_ 6 

Total_ 21 

Ballots cast for Mr. Stockbridge: 

Men_ 7 

Women_ 2 

Total_ 9 

Total number of ballots cast: 

Men_ 187 

Women_ 53 

Grand total-240 


STIPULATION. 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that on 
account of the hot weather and the absence from the city and also intended 
absence of some of the parties and officials on vacations that this hearing be, 
and the same is hereby, continued without prejudice until Monday, September 
12, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken in the above proceedings until 
Monday, September 12, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m.) 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., September 12, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had in the aforesaid contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, representing contestant and contestee. 

STIPULATION. 

It is stipulated between the parties to this cause that on account of court 
engagements this hearing will be continued without prejudice to either party 
until Monday, October 10, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken in the above proceedings until 
Mondav, October 10, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. in.) 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m. October 10, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had in the above contest: 

Present: Same parties as before, to wit. Mr. Frank D. Ayers, on behalf of 
the contestant. Dan Parrillo; Mr. William C. Asay, on behalf of the contestee, 
Stanley H. Kunz. 






























210 


PARRILLO YS. KUNZ. 


STIPTJL S.TION. 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, through 
their respective counsel, that if the judges of the various precinct's that have 
been counted were called as witnesses they would testify that they counted 
the ballots in their respective polling places immediately after the polls closed 
as said ballots were marked and cast by the individual voters, to the best of 
their ability; that they then folded said ballots and placed them in the ballot 
boxes, with the exception of certain precincts, which, on account of the size 
and number of ballots cast, and also inadequate capacity of the ballot boxes, 
they were unable to get all of the ballots into the ballot boxes provided by the 
election commissioners, and in each instance, respectively, a separate package 
was made of the excess ballots, which extra package was sealed*and marked 
with the number of the precinct and ward on the outside, similar to the regular 
ballot boxes. That all ballot boxes and other packages containing ballots, and 
also all other paraphernalia pertaining to the election were, after being 
counted, immediately delivered into the hands of the election commissioners 
or their duly authorized agents at the office of the board of election commis¬ 
sioners as the law directs. That all such boxes and packages were so delivered 
in the same condition as they were when sealed up in the polling places. 

That if the members of the board of election commissioners, the chief clerk, 
the custodian, and all officials and employees of the election office were pro¬ 
duced as witnesses they,would testify that the ballot boxes and packages of 
ballots were, with other records and equipment, received at the election office 
immediately after the election and placed in a secure vault, which was locked 
and sealed, and where all of the ballots of the election held on November '2, 
1920, in the eighth congressional district were kept unmolested until produced 
in the present contest. That the ballot boxes were too small to hold the ballots 
in many instances; that said boxes were ordered, on account of war conditions, 
several months in advance of the election, and also in advance of the constitu¬ 
tional amendment extending universal suffrage to women. That the election 
commissioners misapprehended the size and number of ballots to be provided 
for at the time of securing the ballot boxes. That in some instances the ballot 
boxes were too frail to withstand the pressure of the ballots that were crowded 
into them and they broke open to some extent after being placed into the vault; 
that the ballots were in all instances fully protected in a secure vault even 
though some of the boxes became bursted from the pressure as aforesaid. That 
none of the ballots had been handled or tampered with and were produced for 
recounting in this contest in the same condition as when folded, sealed, and 
delivered by the respective judges of election. 

It is further stipulated that the necessary affidavit and signatures of ail wit¬ 
nesses who testified in this contest is hereby expressly waived and that the 
transcript of evidence of any witness in this controversy will be accepted with 
the same force and effect as if each deposition had been signed and sworn to. 
That all witnesses before testifying were administered an oath, the same as in 
court procedure. 

Mr. Ayeks. With the above stipulation we will close contestant’s hearing 
until time for rebuttal with a motion to strike out the following precincts: 
Sixteenth ward—precincts 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17. 18, 19, 20 
21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30; seventeenth ward—precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. G, 22. 

That the ground for striking out said precincts is fraud to the extent that 
it is impossible to determine the true vote, thereby rendering the election in 
those precincts null and void. 

Mr. Asay. Now, at the close of contestant's case I want to demur to all the 
evidence introduced by him. That the same is insufficient in law and in fact 
to sustain the allegations in contestant's notice of contest. That in the recount 
had by contestant he has failed to show that he was elected as Congressman 
from the eighth Illinois district, but on the contrary, said record does show 
that contestee was duly and legally elected, therefore the evidence as shown 
by the record is insufficient to support contestant's claim, and I hereby enter 
a motion to strike out all of contestant’s evidence and ask the Committee on 
Privileges and Elections to recommend to the House of Congress that contestee 
was duly and legally elected and entitled to his seat as the Representative 
from the eighth Illinois congressional district to the Sixty-seventh Congress of 
the United States. 

And thereupon it is further stipulated between the parties by their respective 
attorneys that the further hearing of this contest be continued and adjourned 
to Monday, November 7, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m. 


PARRILEO YS. KUi\Z. 


211 


(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken in the above proceeding until 
Monday, November 7, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m.) 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., November 7, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had in the above contest. 

Present: Same parties as before. 

STIPULATION. 

On account of court engagements and the necessity of one of the parties being 
absent from the city it is stipulated by the attorneys of the respective parties 
that this cause be and the same is hereby continued to Monday, December 5, 
1921, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken in the above proceeding until 
December 5, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m.) 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., December 5, 1921, the following proceedings 
were had in the above contest. 

Present: Same parties as before. 

STIPULATION. 

It is hereby stipulated that the taking of evidence herein may be closed at 
this time for both parties, unless the Committee on Privileges and Elections 
or the House of Representatives shall desire that additional evidence be taken, 
and it is further stipulated that Guy C. Crapple, the notary public selected by 
contestant to take evidence, be and he is also selected by contestee to prepare 
and certify the record herein for both parties to this contest and also to 
transmit said record by parcel post or by express to the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives at Washington, District of Columbia, in accordance with 
law, and that adjournment be now taken to give time to have the record 
prepared and written up, until Monday, January 9, 1922, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

(Whereupon an adjournment was here taken in the above proceding until 
January 9. 1922, at 10 o’clock a. m.) 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., January 9, 1922, the following proceedings 
were had in the above contest: 

Present : Same parties as before. 

STIPULATION. 

The record having been written up and approved by the attorneys for the 
respective parties, it is hereby stipulated that for the purpose of preparing a 
tabulation of all votes cast and recounted or challenged, as shown by the 
record herein, a continuance will be here taken to Monday, January 30, 1922, 
at 10 o’clock a. m. 

(Whereupon a continuance or adjournment was taken in the above proceed¬ 
ing until Monday, January 30, 1922.) 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., January 30, 1922, the following proceedings 
were had in the above contest: 

Present: The parties as stated before. 

STIPULATION. 

The tabulation of the votes in the precincts recounted has been made and 
the same included in the figures given by the board of election commissioners 
for the entire congressional district, and it being discovered that a mistake 
had been made in two of the precincts, as figured by the board of election com¬ 
missioners, and also in order to refigure the tabulation, it is hereby stipulated 
and agreed that a continuance be. and the same is hereby, taken without 
prejudice to either party to the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., Monday, February 
27, 1922. 

(Wherefore a continuance or adjournment was taken in the above proceed¬ 
ing until the date last aforesaid.) 

At the hour of 10 o’clock a. m., February 27, 1922, the following proceedings 
were had in the above contest: 

Present: Same parties as before. 

STIPULATION. 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the tabulation of the official vote 
and also of the recount for contestant and contestee, and also all challenged 
ballots of the precincts recounted at the instance of both contestant and con- 


212 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ 


testee, as shown by the record, is attached hereto and made a part of this 
record, and that the following tabulation includes all of the precincts in the 
eighth congressional district of Illinois; those that were not recounted, as well 
as those that were recounted; that in the following tabulation the following 
precincts were not recounted; but the official figures, as taken from the records 
of the board of election commissioners, were inserted by agreement of parties 
and those precincts not recounted are as follows: 

Seventeenth ward: Precincts Nos. 10, 12, 13, .14, 15, 16, 17, and 24. 

Eighteenth ward: Precincts Nos. 1, 9, 11, 12, and 17. 

Ninteenth ward: Precincts Nos. 3, 5, 6. 7, 8, 13, 14, 20, and 21. 

Tabulation is as follows: 



Kunz. 

Parrillo. 

Kunz. 


Parrillo. 








Chal- 




Official vote. 

Official vote. 

Recount. 

lenged 

Recount. 








ballots. 




Men, 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 


Men. 

Women. 

Tenth Ward: 










Precinct 1. 

36 

23 

93 

49 

38 

. 22 


90 

49 

Fifteenth Ward: 










Precinct 52. 

101 

32 

67 

30 

101 

33 


79 

40 

Precinct 53_ 

111 

40 

110 

52 

111 

41 


105 

49 

Precinct 54... 

117 

46 

78 

30 

119 

45 


79 

30 

Precinct 55... . 

120 

53 

80 

43 

121 

52 


81 

43 

Precinct 56. 

98 

' 30 

110 

39 

108 

35 


107 

37 

Precinct 57.. 

110 

31 

92* 

72 

110 

31 


94 

14 

Precinct 58.. 

121 

51 

78 

43 

121 

51 


79 

41 

Precinct 59. 

95 

28 

124 

46 

110 

29 


111 

44 

Precinct 60. 

83 

26 

131 

45 

83 

23 


127 

45 

Total. 

956 

337 

870 

400 

984 

340 

.i 862 

343 

Sixteenth ward - 










Precinct 1... 

158 

80 

50 

13 

157 

79 


49 

13 

Precinct 2. 

123 

58 

59 

8 

106 

51 

8 

59 

15 

Precinct 3. 

169 

96 

53 

26 

166 

97 

5 

49 

26 

Precinct 4. 

159 

93 

58 

19 

138 

77 

7 

64 

29 

Precinct 5. 

132 

97 

82 

13 

131 

75 

20 

80 

5 

Precinct 6... 

147 

67 

74 

35 

135 

67 


85 

34 

Precinct 7... 

149 

93 

56 

32 

149 

92 


61 

32 

Precinct 8... 

101 

38 

75 

38 

100 

36 


77 

40 

Precinct 9... 

158 

59 

74 

25 

144 

57 


66 

25 

Precinct 10. 

175 

110 

51 

19 

173 

108 

3 

53 

16 

Precinct 11. 

116 

50 

45 

12 

109 

47 

11 

43 

11 

Precinct 12 . 

117 

39 

70 

25 

116 

39 


68 

26 

Precinct 13. 

197 

138 

35 

14 

196 

126 

8 

32 

14 

Precinct 14 

89 

40 

69 

29 

86 

40 


70 

28 

Precinct 15. 

122 

97 

60 

24 

136 

93 

4 

46 

24 

Precinct 16. 

171 

95 

27 

9 

159 

92 

12 

26 

8 

Precinct 17. 

189 

114 

27 

15 

183 

110 

7 

21 

14 

Precinct 18. 

221 

180 

21 

10 

209 

176 

11 

23 

7 

Precinct 19. 

129 

103 

28 

18 

130 

101 

3 

30 

16 

Precinct 20. 

183 

117 

37 

22 

175 

119 

6 

39 

21 

Precinct 21. 

160 

95 

41 

14 

150 

93 

8 

43 

15 

Precinct 22 . 

173 

98 

50 

12 

167 

97 

1 

50 

11 

Precinct 23. 

230 

121 

33 

14 

223 

120 

8 

33 

14 

Precinct 24 

170 

104 

36 

23 

167 

99 


33 

26 

Precinct 25 

113 

49 

98 

39 

112 

52 


98 

37 

Precinct 26 

103 

42 

125 

47 

102 

40 


125 

50 

Precinct 27. 

158 

68 

68 

11 

117 

42 

31 

80 

12 

Precinct 28. 

178 

82 

68 

38 

110 

66 

49 

71 

41 

Precinct 29. 

111 

46 

112 

49 

106 

50 

2 

118 

43 

Precinct 30. 

165 

119 

44 

6 

152 

95 

31 

48 

6 

Precinct 31 

130 

39 

29 

12 

57 

19 


87 

31 

Precinct 32__ 

61 

29 

63 

43 

58 

27 

5 

63 

37 

Prec inct 33. 

79 

45 

55 

29 

76 

42 

3 

55 

28 

Total. 

4,836 

2,701 

- * 

1,873 

743 

4,495 

2,524 

243 

1,945 

755 

Seventeenth ward: 










Precinct 1 . 

150 

50 

. 101 

29 

144 

48 

9 

100 

28 

Precinct 2. 

124 

61 

44 

26 

123 

57 

4 

43 

19 

Precinct 3. 

127 

76 

73 

41 

116 

65 

5 

72 

40 

Precinct 4. 

131 

50 

86 

53 

124 

49 

5 

87 

52 

Precinct 5. 

137 

67 

56 

27 

122 

60 

11 

55 

26 

Precinct 6. 

127 

68 

75 

27 

127 

78 

2 

72 

27 

Precinct. 7 

92 

46 

71 

26 

96 

45 


70 

26 

Precinct 8. 

98 

50 

88 

28 

95 

37 


87 

24 




































































































































PARRILLO YS. KUNZ 


213 



Kunz. 

Parrillo. 

Kunz. 

Chal¬ 

lenged 

ballots. 

Parrillo. 

Official vote. 

Official vote. 

Recount. 

Recount. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Men. 

Women. 

Seventeenth ward— 










Continued. 










Precinct 9. 

128 

49 

94 

33 

127 

49 


91 

32 

Precinct 10. 

72 

52 

133 

47 

72 

52 


133 

47 

Precinct 11. 

45 

16 

122 

26 

42 

16 


124 

26 

Precinct 12. 

92 

38 

127 

42 

92 

38 


127 

42 

Precinct 13. 

57 

25 

144 

113 

57 

25 


144 

113 

Precinct 14. 

39 

17 

128 

65 

39 

17 


128 

65 

Precinct 15. 

45 

24 

219 

52 

#5 

24 


219 

52 

Precinct 16. 

53 

21 

116 

49 

53 

21 


116 

49 

Precinct 17. 

67 

27 

175 

• 67 

67 

27 


175 

67 

Precinct 18. 

117 

56 

131 

52 

120 

54 


129 

52 

Precinct 19. 

80 

38 

112 

53 

80 

48 


139 

20 

Precinct 20. 

161 

74 

97 

36 

160 

72 


92 

37 

Precinct 21. 

70 

44 

95 

36 

69 

44 

1 

94 

36 

Precinct 22. 

151 

92 

46 

24 

152 

87 

2 

46 

22 

Precinct 23. 

95 

42 

99 

43 

96 

41 


101 

44 

Piecin :t 24. 

69 

36 

85 

51 

69 

36 


85 

51 

Total. 

2,327 

1,119 

2,517 

1,046 

2,287 

1,090 

39 

2. 529 

997 

Eighteenth ward: 










Precinct 1. 

66 

1 

204 

19 

66 

1 


204 

19 

Precinct 2. 

45 

1 

221 

30 

49 

2 


216 

27 

Precinct 3. 

36 

3 

194 

44 

36 

3 


168 

42 

Precinct 4. 

40 

11 

160 

72 

41 

11 


158 

71 

Precinct 5. 

29 

10 

186 

113 

26 

8 


178 

110 

Precinct 6. 

83 

26 

171 

74 

78 

22 


79 

80 

Precinct 7. 

55 

23 

164 

56 

56 

4 


164 

54 

Precinct 8. 

108 

14 

159 

56 

100 

20 


152 

56 

Precinct 9. 

61 

9 

145 

33 

61 

9 


145 

33 

Precinct 10. 

119 

9 

254 

29 

126 

10 


221 

28 

Precinct 11... 

74 

7 

194 

32 

74 

7 


194 

32 

Precinct 12... 

88 

9 

171 

11 

88 

9 


171 

11 

Precinct 13... 

104 

2 

176 

11 

106 

2 


175 

11 

Precinct 14. 

83 

17 

123 

29 

80 

17 


123 

30 

Precinct 15... 

89 

24 

91 

46 

88 

23 


91 

46 

Precinct 16_ 

92 

34 

120 

47 

92 

34 


119 

47 

Precinct 17. 

56 

20 

126 

43 

56 

20 


126 

43 

Total. 

1,228 

220 

2,859 

745 

1,223 

202 


2,684 

740 

Nineteenth ward: 










Precinct 1 

22 

7 

90 

35 

25 

7 


88 

30 

Precinct. 2 

20 

12 

133 

31 

20 

12 


123 

37 

Precinct, 3 

9 

8 

180 

28 

9 

8 


180 

28 

Precinct 4 

67 

9 

76 

25 

75 

7 


99 

30 

Precinct 5 

29 

22 

154 

56 

29 

22 


154 

56 

Precinct. 6 

66 

21 

115 

31 

66 

21 


115 

31 

Precinct. 7 

34 

24 

197 

38 

34 

24 


197 

38 

Precinct. 8 

102 

18 

237 

31 

102 

18 


237 

31 

Precinct 9 

32 

9 

147 

34 

34 

9 


128 

35 

Precinct, in 

65 

24 

82 

20 

69 

23 


83 

16 

Precinct. 11 

62 

15 

80 

41 

61 

15 


77 

40 

Precinct 19 

135 

61 

85 

15 

80 

48 


139 

20 

Preejnct 18 

49 

11 

118 

17 

49 

11 


118 

17 

Prppirjpf 14 

26 

8 

106 

30 

26 

8 


106 

30 

Pfp.pinpt 15 


7 

125 

21 

17 

7 


121 

21 

Precinct 

48 

15 

150 

29 

21 

7 


144 

38 

Preejnct, 17 

71 

24 

128 

22 

74 

22 


124 

24 

Preejnct 18 

52 

58 

104 

33 

51 

57 


103 

32 

Prppinpt IQ 

74 

25 

51 

16 

65 

26 


62 

16 

Precinct 20. 

38 

19 

113 

32 

38 

19 


113' 

32 

Precinct 21. 

24 

22 

123 

39 

24 

22 


123 

39 

Total. 

1,040 

419 

2,594 

624 

969 

393 


2,634 

641 

Twentieth Ward: 










Precinct 1-.. 

93 

19 

109 

29 

69 

18 


119 

29 

Precinct 2__ 

46 

32 

57 

17 

47 

32 


53 

17 

Total. 

139 

51 

166 

46 

116 

50 


172 

.46 

























































































































































































214 


PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


Recapitulation. 


Ward. 

Kunz. 

t 

Parrillo. 

Kunz. 

Parrillo. 

Votes 

not 

counted 

for 

either 
party 
chal¬ 
lenged 
by con¬ 
testant. 

Official vote. 

Official vote. 

Recount. 

Men. 

Wo¬ 

men. 

Men. 

Wo¬ 

men. 

Men. 

Wo¬ 

men. 

Men. 

Wo¬ 

men. 

10 . 

15 . 

16 . 

17 . 

18 . 

19 . 

20 . 

Total. 

36 
956 
4,836 
2,327 
1,228 
1,040 
139 

23 

* 337 
2,701 
1,119 
220 
419 
51 

93 

870 

1,873 

2,517 

2,859 

2,594 

166 

49 
400 
743 
, 1,046 
745 
624 
46 

38 
984 
4,495 
2,287 
1,223 
969 
116 

22 
340 
2,524 
1,090 
202 
393 
50 

90 
862 
1,945 
2,529 
2,684 
2,634 
172 

49 

343 

755 

997 

740 

641 

46 

243 

39 

10,562 

4,870 

10,972 

3,653 

10,112 

4,621 

10,916 

3,571 

282 


It is further stipulated that a copy of the Illinois statutes covering and con¬ 
trolling elections in the city of Chicago, Ill., including the eighth congressional 
district, is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 3, and made a part of this 
record. (Omitted in printing.) 

I, Guy C. Crapple, do hereby certify that I am notary public in and for the 
county of Cook and State of Illinois and an actual resident of the eighth con¬ 
gressional district of Illinois. 

I do further certify that, in compliance with the acts of Congress in such cases 
made and provided, I have caused due notice in writing to he served upon the 
contestee of the time and place, when and where, the foregoing depositions and 
record evidence were to be taken, and introduced and made a part of this 
record; that thereafter on the 18th day of May, A. D. 1921, and from day to 
day thereafter, as shown by this record, I proceeded to hear all the evidence 
offered by the contestant, at the office of the board of election commissioners, 
on the third floor of the city hall, in the city of Chicago and State of Illinois; 
that at such time and place there were present the contestant, represented by 
counsel, and the contestee, represented by counsel, as shown by this record; 
that several witnesses attended and were flrst duly sworn and examined before 
me, and that I thereafter caused their testimony to be reduced to writing and 
the same is bound and designated by the title to this cause, on the front out¬ 
side cover is further marked by my seal and signature on said outside cover; 
that the foregoing transcript of their testimony and record evidence is a true 
and complete transcript of all the evidence so offered by the contestant in the 
above cause. 

And I hereby certify the above and foregoing two volumes to be a true, per¬ 
fect, and complete transcript of all of the record introduced by contestant. in 
the above cause, whereby Dan Parrillo is the contestant and Stanley H. Kunz 
is the contestee. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal 
at Chicago, in the county of Cook and State of Illinois, this - day of Feb¬ 

ruary, A. D. 1922. 

[seal.] ' Guy C. Crapple, 

Notary Public and Commissioner to Take Evidence. 

State of Ilinois, County of Cook, ss: 

Dan Parrillo, being first duly sworn, upon oath says that he is the contestant 
in the above election contest; that he has paid out and expended as necessary 
costs and charges in the above contest the sum of $5,787.60, the receipted 
vouchers of which are hereto attached and are as follows: 


To Rocco Prate_— $360. 00 

To Peter J. Marnco_ 360. 00 

To A. V. Parrillo_ 360. 00 

To N. M. Briglio_ 360. 00 














































PARRILLO VS. KUNZ. 


215 


To W. .T. Snyder- $745 00 

Total- 5,787.60 

That all of the above bills were necessary and all have been paid in full. 

Dan Parrillo, Contestant. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17tli day of March, A. D. 1922. 

[seal.] Guy C. Crapple, 

Notary Public and Commissioner to Take Depositions. 

Dan Parrillo, Dr., to Rocco Prate. 


To 36 days as watcher, at $10 per day. 
Received payment. 


-$360 

Rocco Prate. 


Dan Parrillo, Dr., to Peter J. Marnco. 


To 36 days as watcher, at $10 per day. 
Received payment. 


-$360 

Peter J. Marnco. 


Dan Parrillo, Dr., to Anthony V. Parrillo. 

To 36 days as watcher, at $10 per day___$360. 00 

Received payment. 

Anthony V. Parrillo. 


Dan Parrillo, Dr., to Nicholas M. Briglio 

To 36 days as watcher, at $10 per day_ 

Received payment. 


-$360.00 

Nicholas M. Briglio. 


Dan Parrillo, Dr., to William J. Snyder. 

To 36 days’ attendance as court stenographer, reporting proceedings of 
election contest wherein Dan Parrillo is the contestant and Stanley 
H. Kunz is the eontestee, before the board of election commissioners, 

at $10 per day_.._$360. 00 

To transcribing 770 pages of testimony and proceedings taken in said 

contest at 50 cents per page (being 1,925 folios, at 20 cents per folio)_ 385. 00 


Total_ 

Received payment. 


_ 745.00 

William J. Snyder. 


Dan Parrillo, Dr., to Guy C. Crapple. 


To taking evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and record evi¬ 
dence for the contestant in the above election contest, consisting of 
3,128 folios, at 20 cents per folio-1-$602. 60 


Received payment. 


Guy C. Crapple, 

Notary Public and Commissioner to take evidence. 


Dan Parrillo, l)r., to Frank D. Ayers. 

To attorney’s fees for preparing all papers, attending all hearings, 
presenting all evidence and performing all work necessarily done 
and to be done in the conduct of the election contest wherein Dan 
Parrillo is the contestant and Stanley H. Kunz is the eontestee-$3,000. 00 

Received payment. 

Frank D. Ayers. 

















■ 








. 


' ’ ' . T • 










r 


■ 

. 

. 










• -* • if 

• ■ . • ■ ■■ ■ ■ • - ■ - ■ • ' *' ;•*?» 

. 








. \ • .■ ■ ' ■ ,vo*i \, .\> ' ?>o v 












INDEX 


Page. 

Notice of contest____ 1-8 

Proof of service_ 1 

Answer to notice of contest_8-14 

Appearances for contestant: 

Ayers, Frank D_ 15, 

19, 26, 30, 38, 39, 42, 52, 62, 166, 173, 177, 180, 197, 206, 209 

Brouillet, Hector A _ 86,93,98,101,108,116,119,129,134,141 

Pierson, Haynie R_ 143 

Wolf, Alexander_ 67, 72, 79 

Appearances for contestee: 

Asay, William C_ 15,19,26,30,38,42,52,62,67,72,79,86,93,98,101. 

108, 116, 119, 129, 134, 141, 143, 166, 173, 177, 180, 197, 206, 209 

Streeter, Wallace_ 15,19, 26, 30, 38, 62 

Evidence for contestant_14-192 

Evidence for contestee_192-215 

Notary’s certificate_ 214 

Officer before whom proceedings were taken, Crapple, Guy_ 15, 

19, 26, 30, 38, 39, 42, 52, 62, 67, 72, 79, 86, 93, 98, 101, 108, 
116, 119, 129, 134, 141, 143, 166, 173, 177, 180, 197, 206, 209 

Relative to ballot box in tenth ward_18-19 

Relative to ballot boxes in fifteenth ward_19-29 

Relative to ballot boxes in sixteenth ward_ 29-31, 38-39, 42H13, 

52-54, 60-65, 67, 70-72, 74-77, 78-80, 84, 86-87, 91-93, 95-96, 
97-99, 100-101, 105-109, 115-117, 118-120, 127-130, 134-136, 139 

Relative to ballot boxes in the seventeenth ward_ 141-143, 148-151, 153-154, 

158-160, 165-171, 173, 175-176, 177-180, 181, 182, 201, 203-204 

Relative to ballot boxes in the eighteenth ward_ 175,180,181, 

182-187,189,195-196,197-198,199, 200, 201-202, 204, 207-208 

Relative to ballot boxes in the nineteenth ward_ 173-174,176,187-188 

189-190,191,192-195,197,198,199-200, 202-203, 205, 206, 209 

Relative to ballot boxes in the twentieth ward_ 190-191 204, 205-206 

Stipulation_ 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 166, 204, 209, 210, 211, 214 

Tabulation of votes in notice of contest showing alleged official returns 

and true returns in sixteenth, seventeenth, and nineteenth wards_ 5-7 

Tabulation of votes in eighth congressional district_212-214 

Witnesses for contestant: 

Brush, William A_16,19 

Curran, William H__ 151 

Goodman, Sol__16, 23 

Rounds, Howard A_ 31-38. 39-42, 

43-52, 54-60, 65-67, 68-70, 72-74, 77-78, 80-86, 87-91, 93- 
95, 96-97, 99-100, 102-105, 109-115, 117-118, 121-127, 130-134, 
136-138, 139-141, 143-147, 151-153, 154-158, 160-164, 171-172 


EXHIBITS. 


Exhibit 1.—Subpoena duces tecum_ 14 

Exhibit 2.—Stipulation_14-15 

Exhibit 3.—Copy of Illinois statutes covering and controlling elections in 

the city of Chicago, Ill. (omitted in printing)_ 214 

217 


o 
























































■;* |.:A a 

- } ■ ' ,iM :•!. an ;• 

.. 

. 

. ■ 

. 








' 






' 

. : ' ' ' 

' 

- 

* 

■ i v >*> : .. • U\ i :, - . in ! . 

. 




L'BJe'22 



















































































































■ i' 
. 


































































































































* 










































































































































' 


































































